A Study of Analysing Characteristics of Students’ Informal Learning between Peers within Different Environments--- Taking British Architecture Schools as Examples

A Study of Analysing Characteristics of Students’ Informal Learning between Peers within Different Environments--- Taking British Architecture Schools as Examples | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article A Study of Analysing Characteristics of Students’ Informal Learning between Peers within Different Environments--- Taking British Architecture Schools as Examples Jierui Wang This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7888358/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 14 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Alongside the development of architectural education, especially the engagement of virtual and distance platforms, traditional design studio pedagogy has been challenged in this discipline. This paper makes a thematic analysis to compare architecture students’ informal learning experiences between peers in physical and virtual environments. The relative data are collected by both quantitative and qualitative measures, divided into two phases. The first phase was processed within three British architectural institutions, whose students were taken surveys to collect their preferences on learning within the conventional design studio and remotely; the second source was collected from observations and interviews conducted explicitly in one British architectural institution. Those data were analysed to summarise the main factors which affect architecture students’ learning experiences within the design studio and virtual environment, respectively. The study identified four main factors, which are face-to-face and distance contacts, studio atmosphere and its alternatives, peer-to-peer bonds, and the form of a community and/or a group. Additionally, research has shown that the majority of architecture students have a preference for studying in a studio environment that is created within a traditional design studio atmosphere. This suggests that the virtual platforms are unable to fully replace the physical design studio. Social science/Education Biological sciences/Psychology Social science/Psychology Architecture Peer Learning Design Studio Virtual Environment Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Introduction Since the past few decades, virtual and distance learning contexts have been introduced in tertiary education, so university students have more alternative learning measures (Boys 2011, p. 141). As stated by Roberts and Coombs (2023), the current architectural education, at least in UK, has enabled architecture students to not only regard architectural profession as their only goal when they are graduated but also to prepare on the challenge of the world. To accomplish this, educational spaces need to be equipped with specific devices and facilities. This enables flexibility and provides optimal support for the learners and their learning environment (Johnson 2018, p. xi). In these roles, online learning environments in the distance, particularly, are perceived as promoting significant venues which strengthen formal teaching and flourish students’ lives, learning and work (Jesus et al. 2014). In addition, due to the COVID-19 pandemic worldwide from the beginning of 2020 till 2022, almost all higher educational institutions had been forced to move their education methods from face-to-face to distance and remote measures (UNESCO 2020). However, in architecture as a practice-based discipline (Fleischmann, 2019), students’ learning experiences generally rely on the specific learning space, which indicates the design studio, and the specific environment, which deems “studio culture” (Vowles 2012). Thus, their learning methods changed a lot when they were introduced to online environments in remote during the “work from home” (Iranmanesh and Onur, 2021), which had lasted one and a half year in the UK. This study employs both quantitative and qualitative approaches to investigate the experiences of architecture students’ informal leaning activities between peers, to investigate the key factors that significantly impact students' learning experiences in different environments. Design Studio and Students’ Peer Learning within It Design studio refers to a conventional and heart space for practice-based art and design education, providing students with a valid learning space to absorb knowledge in such diverse fields (Marshalsey and Sclater 2020; Fleischmann 2019; Attoe and Mugerauer 1991; Orr and Bloxham 2012). Design studio teaching appeared in architectural education around the 19th century since it was recognised that conventional classroom teaching could not succeed in teaching design (Schön 1985), so the relative theories and practices have developed for over a century. Schön (1983) proposed the concept that the design studio teacher serves as a "coach" or "instructor", guiding students to conform to disciplinary norms and begin to adopt the mindset of an architect. In addition, Park (2020) indicated that, within the architectural design studio, students are often assigned diverse and extensive design projects ranging from landscapes to buildings, and encompassing both public and private spaces. Besides, the design studio should also cultivate students’ creative thinking and problem-solving abilities via the views outside the design studio environment (Hettithanthri and Hansen 2022). Thus, design students’ learning is guided by individual and ongoing feedback and is informed by a cycle of action and reflection (Fleischmann 2019), leading to various learning and even living experiences happening in the design studio, composing ‘studio culture’ (Koch et al. 2002). Johnson (2000), and Vosinakis and Koutsabasis (2013) indicated that learning activities in the design studio include: the design brief, the desk crit, the interplay of design thinking and practice, and the design review. Such activities are deemed catalysts to improve students’ creative thinking and techniques (Fleischmann 2019) and interaction and self-evaluation (Park 2020) by means of comparing with others’ work (Güler 2015). Within the studio culture, Kvan (2001) and Pektaş (2015) articulated that students can experience the design process within an optimal learning community, which is helpful in evoking students’ perception of being an architect (Koch et al. 2002). The culture identifies that social interactions, active learning, and social engagement (Fleischmann 2019, Lee 2006) play a premium role in the process of architectural learning (Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick 2006). All learning activities, as cited in Cherry (2024), just proved the theory of cognitive development proposed by Vygotsky, who emphasized that human development relies on social interactions. Nevertheless, the design studio and its culture are not ideal platforms for teaching architecture due to various challenges, including hierarchical tutor-student relationships (Morton 2012), a lack of authenticity of practice (Webster 2005), and an emphasis on cultivating isolated architects instead of collaborative professionals (Buchanan 2012). For example, Yorgancioglu and Tunali (2020) concluded that conventional studio teaching makes the tutor acts as an expert or authority, enabling students to behave and interact less within the design studio and tend to develop specialised tactics to fulfil the tutor’s preferences. More than that, Güler (2015) cited that the duration of interactions between tutor and students are usually limited during the desk crit (Tate and Osborne 2013). Those issues indicate that only relying on formal teaching is insufficient to successfully educate architecture students because students who combine active and passive architectural learning appear to comprehended the discipline better (Webster 2008). Thus, Pelman and Zoran (2023) emphasised that students’ informal learning activities are dominant in architecture education, since students can normally grasp their intuition and tacit knowledge of architectural design via engaging with complex and open-ended problems as when they work on design projects. Specifically, the peer learning between students has become a prior part of studio culture and taken up more time for students’ learning experiences within design studios (Achten et al. 2011). Boud et al. (2001) contended that peer learning can be regarded as small-group activities where individuals of equal status actively help each other formally and informally. Nevertheless, architectural design is a knowledge-intensive activity (Rodgers et al. 2001), but architecture students’ knowledge and experiences are less than tutors. Thus, students’ peer learning is somehow affected by the power relationships between the tutor and students (Ioannou 2018; Yorgancioglu and Tunali 2020), determined by different levels of knowledge and experience (Dutton 1991; Ghassan and Bohemia 2015) and the limited time that tutors afford for individual students (McClean and Hourigan 2013). For example, students receive feedback from the tutor throughout the process of a design project (Belluigi 2016); the dialogue between the tutor and student enables the latter to realise and evaluate others’ project’s potential and constraints (Orr and Bloxham 2012); feedback is shared among students as they express their opinions regarding others’ design works (Gray 2013). Therefore, Pelman and Zoran (2023) claimed that previous studies usually ignore architecture students’ informal learning between peers, since they are hard to be tracked by studio tutors. This gap provides this paper an opportunity to trace students’ informal learning activities between peers within the design studio and other spaces where students constitute alike studio environments. Consequently, the theory of “community of practice”, which is initially proposed by Lave and Wenger (1991), was introduced to research such learning experiences. Architecture Students’ Learning Experiences within Different Environments In nowadays, the studio tutor and students have been introduced to conducting teaching and learning via internet-based and distance learning methods, within which resources can be accessed independently of time and place (Anklam 2009, Kaplan and Haenlein 2010). This trend enabled students to engage in informal learning activities between peers more flexibly and easily. Thus, Harrison and Hutton (2014) and King (2016) argued that even though ample physical space is available to support collaborative work, online spaces are the preferred spaces for collaboration, which can add value to formal classroom-based learning and enhance learners’ overall learning experience (El-Hussein 2012, p. iii). Especially when the COVID-19 pandemic began, all educational and study processes in higher education were moved into online and virtual environments without preparation, and it also happened in the architectural discipline (Komarzy´nska- ´Swie´sciak et al. 2021). Thus, architecture students’ peer learning within physical and online learning environments There have long been multiple studies focused on the applications of online and distance learning measures in architectural education (Ioannou 2018). For example, most previous researchers compared students’ performances and self-assessment of their learning experiences within physical and virtual design studios. They utilised a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods to collect and analyse data, ensuring the analysis of exhaustive learning experiences collected from qualitative approaches and making it easier to compare the distinct learning performances collected from quantitative approaches. Figure 1 illustrates some representative studies. Generally, quantitative methods were initially used to assist the qualitative methods. For example, in the survey conducted by Chen (2016), closed-ended questions were employed to determine the most challenging design tasks according to participants' perspectives. On the other hand, open-ended questions were utilised to identify the issues and resources that students encountered and utilised in each design task. The results illustrated that instructors, peers, and the Internet were the most useful learning resources. In the study conducted by Rodriguez et al. (2018), the online surveys consisted of multiple-choice and ordinal scale questions specifically developed to assess students' levels of motivation and engagement. As for the online studio designed by Marshalsey and Sclater (2020), the online survey was first sent to recruit undergraduate and postgraduate students. After collecting survey data, the analysis of this survey-led case study involved narrative inquiry and thematic analysis to interpret the participants’ responses to survey questions. However, the quantitative methods used in the literature above were assisted measures to determine the sample size and distinguish specific groups of samples for qualitative methods. Thus, none of them deemed as the specific methods to analyse the comparison between architecture students’ learning experiences within the conventional design studio and online environment in the distance, let alone testing if the parametric or the nonparametric analysis is appropriate to do the analysis. Additionally, those studies were all based on pre-arranged projects or pedagogical modules, so specific platforms and training were prepared for the study participants, who could have some anticipations and stereotypes of their learning experiences within the online environments. Thus, the research outcome from those previous studies may not fit the condition that students are engaged in online environments by accident without preparations, such as the “work from home” policy caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Research question In the study conducted by Rodriguez et al. (2018), the online surveys consisted of multiple-choice and ordinal scale questions specifically developed to assess students' levels of motivation and engagement. Besides, there were few focuses on students’ experiences of informal learning activities between peers. This study intends to research such learning activities experienced by architecture students, devoted to evaluating different ways of these learning activities engaged in physical and virtual learning environments. The result will ultimately contribute to the development of architectural education, architectural learning modules, and the physical and virtual learning environments in architecture. Accordingly, the research question shall be answered: To pinpoint the key factors that have a significant impact on architecture students' experiences of peer learning in both the design studio and online settings. To investigate the specific ways in which architecture students engage in informal learning activities between peers. Methods To answer the research question above, the data collection method of this study applied data triangulation (Denzin 1989, p. 25; Harding 2019, p. 19), which has been increasingly seen as a legitimate method for gathering and analysing data in social science research fields (Östlund et al. 2011), since its ability to effectively combine and utilise the strengths of both quantitative and qualitative approaches (Östlund et al. 2011) by combining the two methods pragmatically (Flick 2020, p. 210). Specifically, according to Cross et al. (1996, p. 14), the qualitative approach focuses on analysing long-term processes and processual aspects (Bryman 1992, pp. 59-61), generating exhaustive descriptions of peer learning experiences with underlying patterns and context that give the information meaning. As for the quantitative part, it is generally to make data with universality, to analyse structural aspects (Bryman 1992, pp. 59-61). Data Collection In this study, the process of collecting data was separated into two stages. In specific, the first stage was conducted on a general scale, which was from three British architectural schools by sending questionnaires, to detect architecture students’ peer learning experiences in physical design studios and virtual learning environments; Since the general peer learning experiences were found in the first stage, the second stage was conducted in one specific British architecture school, through taking observations and interviews to students when they engaged in informal learning activities between peers. The following sections elaborate on the specific methods used for detailed data collection. Questionnaire To examine the research questions, this paper designed data collection questions that focus on the experiences and interactions of architecture students in peer learning scenarios, including both pre-pandemic and during the pandemic. The gathered data uncovered the challenges, transformations, and innovations that students encountered during peer learning activities amidst the pandemic, with the aim of evaluating and comparing these approaches. This paper cites the quantitative methods employed in previous relevant research to validate its findings. The conclusions are corroborated by quantitative data gathered from studying students' learning behaviours, involvement, and self-evaluations, all of which support the conclusions drawn (e.g. Ham and Schnabel 2011, Pektaş 2015, Chen 2016, Rodriguez et al. 2018). One prevalent quantitative measure utilised in previous studies is the implementation of Likert-scale questions (e.g. Vosinakis and Koutsabasis 2013, Pektaş 2015, Rodriguez et al. 2018). In terms of reliability, this paper utilised Cronbach’s Alpha to assess the internal consistency of the questionnaire. The findings indicate that the Cronbach’s Alpha value of the questionnaire exceeds 0.89, signifying strong internal consistency. To put it simply, all questions are trustworthy in assessing the specific aspect that this research strives to measure. The questionnaire was intended for students enrolled at three British architectural schools, which are Cardiff University, The University of Sheffield, and The University of Edinburgh. Their architectural education is ranked in QS University Ranking System, which means that their education level is officially authorised; it also indicates that they are global institutions with more probability of students from different background, so the data would be various; besides, their pedagogy and educational mode of architecture are typical but specific compared with other institutions. Accordingly, there are distinct traits and characteristics of architectural pedagogies in such institutions enabling various learning of architecture students, to make data richer. Observation After collecting quantitative data via the questionnaire, architecture students’ specific informal learning activities between peers was furthermore collected by means of qualitative research measures. In this paper, semi-structured observation was initially employed. This is because the research aims to identify practical problems that individuals encounter (Gillham 2008, p.19). Hence, during the process, students’ peer learning experiences were observed. Given that this approach is continuous, gathering these initial reflections can be helpful in guiding and offering suggestions for analysing alternative data collection methods (Phillippi and Lauderdale 2018). To document students’ specific experiences in the form of stories, Gillham (2008, p.23) suggested that the primary method of observation involves observing them in their daily lives and then taking field notes on students’ peer learning activities (Shaffer 2003). Hence, the whole process was recorded by field notes to review compare each observation to make critical analyses (Gillham 2008, p.27). The main areas of interest during each observation revolved around the crucial elements that greatly influence architecture students' peer learning experiences in both the design studio and online environments. These factors include collaborations, personal development, the studio environment, and informal social interactions. The field notes were also taken, followed by those four points. The length of observation is determined by the timing of the observed activities. For example, architecture students usually experience peer learning lasting several hours, even a whole day, so that the observation will follow the entire learning process. Hence, the observation applied in this research follows a time-sampling schedule (Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias 2008, p. 193) to determine the timing of observation. Combined with the majority of undergraduate architecture students’ learning habitats, the observations usually happened from those students’ lunchtime to late afternoons, divided into two to three separate periods, which lasted at least half an hour to several hours. Interview To deepen the understanding of students’ implicit activities during the observation process, some of the students were invited to engage in individual interviews. These interviews aimed to supplement the data collected through observation, since intensive interviewing has long been regarded as the data collection to achieve an in-depth exploration of a particular topic or experience (Charmaz 2006). Those intensive interviews were designed as the form of semi-structured containing open-ended questions to explore those students’ peer learning experiences which were not observed during the observations. These questions are illustrated below. In-studio peer study outside formal sessions Do you typically engage in study with your peers within the design studio, aside from formal desk critiques, scheduled sessions, and tutorials? Could you provide a detailed example of the activities you usually undertake during these learning processes? This might include instances of seeking help from others, participating in group work, or working independently while having peers around. Out-of-studio peer study When you are outside the design studio, at what times and in which locations do you collaborate with your peers outside of formal desk crits, sessions, and tutorials? What are your thoughts on studying with your peers in these off-studio settings? Impact of design studio learning environment Does the learning environment within the design studio enhance these learning processes? What distinctions do you notice between conducting these activities inside and outside the design studio? Factors influencing learning place choice What elements influence your decision when choosing a place to learn? Consider aspects like the learning culture, the physical learning environment, living expenses, and commuting time, among others. Contribution to architecture learning How do these learning processes contribute to your architectural studies? Self-monitoring of learning progress How do you assess the progress you've made following these learning processes? As for the categorisation of different interviewees, they were numbered into Student 1, 2, 3… Table 1 summarises the information of each interviewee. Table 1 The Basic Information of Interviewees Identity Academic Year Gender 1st-Year Chair 1 st -year Female 2nd-Year Chair 2 nd -year Male Student 1 3 rd -year Male Student 2 3 rd -year Female Student 3 3 rd -year Male Student 4 1 st -year Female Student 5 2 nd -year Male Student 7 1 st -year Male Student 8 3 rd -year Female Student 9 2 nd -year Male Student 10 2 nd -year Male Student 11 2 nd -year Male Student 12 2 nd -year Male Student 13 2 nd -year Female Student 14 3 rd -year Female Student 15 2 nd -year Female Student 16 2 nd -year Female Student 17 2 nd -year Female Student 18 3 rd -year Female Student 19 3 rd -year Male Student 20 3 rd -year Female Sampling The sampling of the questionnaire participants applies the ‘sampling size table’ (Krejcie & Morgan 1970), as shown in Figure 2, and the estimated sample size of this study is between 226-265 (75-88 participants from each school on average). In addition, Baker (1999, p. 152) indicates that if a population is under 1000, a sampling ratio of 30 percent is good. Therefore, the number of questionnaire participants is 165-255. Connaway and Powell (2010, p. 166) contended that the minimum acceptable response rate is 75 percent (Williamson 2018, p. 364). Accordingly, the estimated number of valid questionnaire responses is between 124 and 199. Between April and June 2021, a total of 166 questionnaires were completed, with 156 being considered valid participants, which indicates that the response rate reaches around 61%-95%. As for the sample size of observations, cluster sampling (Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias 2008, p. 173) is applied to directly select multiple students as sub-groups (McCombes 2019) according to students’ learning characteristics and habitus. As the complexity of potential data collected from the observation, Riche and Tanner (1998, p. 27) contended that breaking down observation into smaller elements makes it easier to control and, in some situations, easier to change. For this study, to address the second objective, the specific ways of architecture students’ informal learning activities between peers are clustered according to their mutual characteristics and categories. Thus, the sampling of observation is clustered into two stages identified by specific activities that happened. Specifically, the first stage is categorised by the location of peer learning activities taking place, such as the design studio and other places; the last stage is the specific peer learning clusters. Figure 3 illustrates the hierarchical relationship between multistage samplings. Regards the sample size, qualitative research usually is not suitable collecting data from common and big-scale objects (Mohajan 2018); Thus, data saturation, which is the point at which no new information or themes occur in the data from the completion of additional interviews or cases (Guest et al. 2006), can generally be a reference to determine the number of participants. Data analysis Quantitative Data Analysis Coffey and Atkinson (1996, p.168) described the transformation of the collected raw data from students into literal versions that are easily analysable. Specifically, this study applied exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to categorise participants’ different variables, such as Likert-scale responses in this study, into some specific principal components (Watkins 2018). Since the principal components were found out, they are helpful in designing appropriate questions for the qualitative data collection. The contents below elaborate on the analysis process step by step. In order to identify the key factors that significantly impact architecture students' peer learning experiences in both the design studio and online environments, the questionnaire considered Kaiser's (1960) eigenvalue-greater-than-one rule and Cattell's (1966) scree plot to determine the influential components (Author 2023). Ultimately, ten principal components were identified with eigenvalues above "1" based on the questionnaire data. Furthermore, Figure 4 illustrates that the eigenvalues decline gradually after component 4, indicating a reduction in their impact. Accordingly, four components are counted as the principal components in the survey. As the data analysis method applied in Author (2023), in order to identify which factors are represented by each item, factor loading was used to illustrate the Pearson correlations between the items and the components. Nevertheless, certain variables measure more than one component in the component matrix. Therefore, a varimax rotation was performed to reassign the factor loadings, as depicted in Table 2. Table 2 Rotated Component Matrix Components (Factors) 1 2 3 4 Talk to others improves creativity in physical .794 Ask for help in physical .739 Collaborate with others to cultivate innovative ideas in the field of physical education. .726 Help others in physical .713 Share learning materials in physical .703 Working together to develop our own ideas in the physical realm. .703 I feel productive when I collaborate with others in person .689 Learn from others’ opinions in physical .651 The casual social elements of the studio carry significance .632 You can use it to determine if I am lagging behind while observing others' progress in the physical realm .605 Working in a team can enhance one's own ideas in a practical manner. .599 The studio environment stimulates students' comparative thinking. .581 The studio environment stimulates students' comparative thinking. .565 Increase your effort when you witness others' physical work. .541 Increase your effort when you witness others' physical work. .512 Develop a sense of confidence when collaborating with others in person. .498 Seek out informal critiques or reviews with others in person. .443 I feel productive when collaborating with others virtually. .762 Feel assured when collaborating virtually with others. .758 Feel assured when collaborating virtually with others. .756 Feel assured when collaborating virtually with others. .621 Talk to others can improve creativity in virtual Share learning materials in virtual .777 Ask for help in virtual .743 Run informal crits or reviews in virtual .720 The school has managed to uphold the informal social aspects even in virtual settings. .633 Collaborate with others in virtual .478 Help others in virtual .475 Sharing work physically is more convenient .747 Sharing work physically is more convenient .717 Sharing work virtually is more convenient. .527 The four main factors mentioned above have been incorporated into four thematic categories that capture architecture students' peer learning experiences in informal settings, as illustrated in Table 3. Afterwards, inferential statistics were employed to investigate whether students' preferences for learning experiences differed significantly between the design studio and remote environment. Specifically, the T-test was used to compare the t-value (t) and p-value (p) of Likert-scales of each paired Likert-type response for the same question (Boone and Boone 2012). Table 3 Various Thematic Categories of Data for the Questionnaire Themes Social Aspects Study Atmosphere Interindividual Supports Collaboration Specific indication In the studio, students interact through casual conversations and being in the presence of others while they work on their own tasks. Students’ learning activities rely on the study atmosphere within the studio environment, including the things happen within it, and physical and social settings within it This environment allows for the sharing of design thinking，learning materials，process work，and design products among students. Students collaborate with one another for tasks such as group projects. Qualitative Data Analysis Burke (2015) indicated that the shifts in studio culture result from the implementation of the Bologna model and its three-plus-two-years (bachelor’s degree plus master’s degree) education pattern. Welsh School of Architecture in Cardiff University, as one of the top five architecture schools in the UK, applied this educational pattern in representative. Specifically, according to the introduction of this school’s official website, Architecture (BSc/MArch) of Welsh School of Architecture is a five-year architecture degree course, which consists of a three-year Part 1 Bachelor of Science, and a two-year Part 2 Master of Architecture with one year in architectural practice and a final year based in the school. Students in each academic year can spend most of their time in their particular design studio. Students are educated by traditional one-to-one tutorials, with supports of lectures, seminars, group assignments and online learning materials. To ensure the course above, the school provides students with a range of working spaces, workshops and computer-aided design facilities to support students’ learning. Accordingly, having a good reputation in architectural education, studio-based pedagogy with multiple supports, and various study spaces within the school building, the Welsh School of Architecture is representative to be selected as the example in this thesis. Specifically, drawing on the field notes from observations and the transcripts obtained from interviews, students' informal learning activities between peers outside formal sessions, tutorials, and desk crits were categorized into specific themes. When it comes to transforming the observational notes into valuable data, this study utilizes the concept of ''thick description'' (Geertz, 1973). More precisely, students' learning activities and experiences were organized according to different types of phenomena and then coded with distinct symbols. These codes could be searched using keywords and identified based on topics, time, or participants (Phillippi & Lauderdale, 2018). For instance, various learning venues were grouped as the first cluster, denoted as 1, 2, etc. Different learning activities were clustered at the second level, indicated by 1.1, 2.1, 3.1, etc. The specific structure of the thick description is presented in Table 4, as shown below: Table 4 The Structure of Observation Field Notes 1 st cluster 2 nd cluster Code Year Design Studio / Hybrid studio Help each other or being helped, compare work, working together (mutual engagement) 1.1 / 2.1 Be motivated by presenting at the studio, for example, to work harder as part of a community (a joint enterprise) 1.2 / 2.2 Wandering and chatting with others within the design studio, just like joining a socialising activity within a community centre (a shared repertoire) 1.3 / 2.3 Feel more engaged with other members who learn within the design studio (mutual engagement) 1.4 / 2.4 To understand the structure of observation field notes in more detail, there are some examples indicating the specific peer learning experiences in each code: (1) Some students do their own business in the form of a group with 2-3 members within their studio, and this phenomenon can be symbolised in ‘1.3’; (2) Many students sometimes communicate with peer learning members within the tutorial space, and this can be coded as ‘2.1’; (3) Some students ask for help to seniors privately, and this can also be symbolised as ‘2.1’. Since the main categories of participants’ peer learning experiences were recognised and summarised, this paper applied thematic analysis to analyse qualitative data (Jamieson 2017). To validate the themes summarised from qualitative data, such themes were compared with those interpreted from the questionnaire responses. In addition, such themes can be aligned with three attributes of communities of practice proposed by Lave and Wenger (1991), which are mutual engagement, a joint enterprise, and a shared repertoire. Mutual engagement, based on Wenger’s (1998) statement, refers to the relationships that bind community members as a unity. A joint enterprise, according to Wenger’s (1998) theory, results from a collective negotiation process that reflects the full complexity of mutual engagement. Wenger (1998) articulated that a shared repertoire refers to communal resources that community members have developed over time. Accordingly, the themes of such peer learning experiences collected from qualitative methods were coded into “Face-to-Face and Distance Contacts” (interpreted from “Collaboration”), “Studio Atmosphere and Its Alternatives” (interpreted from “Studio Atmosphere”), “Peer-to-Peer Bonds” (interpreted from “Interindividual Supports”), and “The Form of a Group and/or a Community” (interpreted from “Social Aspects”) allocated by the genres of students’ peer learning activities. Specifically, “Face-to-face and distance contacts” is sourced from a shared repertoire of communities of practice; “Studio atmosphere and its alternatives” and “The form of a group and/or a community” is sourced from a joint enterprise of communities of practice; “Peer-to-peer bonds” is sourced from mutual engagement of communities of practice. Table 5 illustrates the structure of the themes. Thus, in the next section, the titles of the following four sub-sections are summarised into such four themes. Table 5 Structure of the Themes Themes Face-to-face and distance contacts Studio atmosphere and its alternatives Peer-to-peer bonds The form of a group and/or a community Specific indication Students’ interactions between peers by face-to-face and distance contact methods. Regarding the design studio, consider both the physical layout and furnishings, as well as the various interactions and events that occur among the students within its confines. When it comes to the interactions that take place among students, they are predominantly founded on elements such as students' shared interests, similar traits, mutual concerns, common values, and collective aims. The learning community is organised by all students in the same academic year; A small learning group consist of 2-4 individuals. Ethical Aspects All the questions that need to be asked to follow the ethics policy for human research of Cardiff University applicable when human participants are involved. The ethical approval forms (with the reference number 2223), which were approved by The Welsh School of Architecture’s Research Ethics Committee on 11 th May 2022, are attached in the Cover Letter. This committee belongs to one of School Research Ethics Committees (SRECs) under the ethical review model of Cardiff University. Participants in all data collection exercises can withdraw from the research at anytime. Before implementing interviews and observations, the documents containing the requirements of the study, including consentient information, are informed to volunteered students. Informed Consent Before implementing questionnaires, observations, interviews, the documents containing the requirements of the study, including consent information, are informed to volunteered students. By explaining the research objectives and being ethically appropriate, the participants fully understand their roles and responsibilities for the study. Besides, to implement observation, the investigator needs to acquire the provision of participants to observe and record within physical design studios and get approval for recording students' learning beyond formal timetable activities. The data collection process can be conducted only if the consent is approved. The consent forms were sent to volunteered students at two separate dates. Specifically, students from three aimed architectural institutions received content forms on 29 th March 2022 before conducting questionnaires. Furthermore, another set of content forms were sent to students at Cardiff University on 18 th April 2022 to conduct observations and interviews. Since the approval process was longer than what I expected, I had to collect data before the ethical approval form was granted. Even though, students fully agreed to attend the data collection process, since they understood the research objectives and their personal information would not be collected. Results This section presents results from both phases of this study. Specifically, the first sub-section illustrates results from quantitative data, which addressed the first objective. The following four sub-sections indicate four thematic characteristics of architecture students’ informal learning activities between peers, elaborating on results from qualitative data, which addressed the second objective. Principal Factors of Architecture Students’ Peer Learning in Different Environments Through T-test from questionnaire results (as shown in Table 6), the differences in preference between collaboration, including running informal crits and reviews, collaboration, sharing materials, and allocating tasks when in groups within the design studio and remotely are all significant (p<0.05). The results indicated that the contact methods have significant impacts on architecture students’ peer learning. Table 6 Paired Simple Test of Collaboration between Students Pairs Mean SD t df Sig. (2-tailed) Run informal crits and reviews in physical and virtual .82692 1.33520 7.735 155 <.001 Feel more productive when working with others in physical and virtual .62179 1.30182 5.966 155 <.001 Feel more confident when working with others in physical and virtual .62179 1.10916 7.002 155 <.001 Allocate different tasks when working in groups in physical and virtual .48077 .98026 6.126 155 <.001 It is easier to share work in physical and virtual .50000 1.14441 5.457 155 <.001 Collaborate with others when doing design work in physical and virtual .77564 1.29303 7.492 155 <.001 Collaboratively work to develop own ideas in physical and virtual .51282 1.04411 6.135 155 <.001 As shown in Table 7, the preference between looking at others’ work to check the process, to work harder, to make sure not to struggle alone, and to debate with others within the design studio and remotely shows significant (p<0.05). Therefore, the design studio atmosphere creates a complex context where students experience conflicting emotions, as it both inspires personal goals and ambitions while also subjecting them to the pressure of comparing their work with others. In contrast to the atmosphere within the design studio, the virtual learning environment lacks the presence of anyone pushing, allowing students to relieve the pressure that the studio atmosphere creates. This, in turn, fosters a sense of independence when it comes to their work. The preference for individual learning in the design studio and remotely does not show a significant difference (p = 0.115 > 0.05), indicating that the working environment does not have a significant impact on students' individual learning. Table 7 Paired Sample Test of Study Atmosphere in Physical and Virtual Contexts Pairs Mean Std. Deviation t df Sig. (2-tailed) Look at others to check if they are behind in physical and virtual .65385 1.11096 7.351 155 <.001 See others to work harder in physical and virtual .62821 1.16518 6.734 155 <.001 Check if I am the only one struggling in physical and virtual .39103 1.18362 4.126 155 <.001 Debate with fellows in physical and virtual .17308 .88108 2.453 155 .015 Prefer to learn individually in physical and virtual -.11538 .90847 -1.586 155 .115 As shown in Table 8, students’ various peer-to-peer relationships show significant differences (p<0.05) within conventional design studios and remotely. The results indicated that architecture students’ interindividual relationships have significant impacts on students’ peer learning. Table 8 Paired Simple Test between Personal Acquisition from Others Pairs Mean Std. Deviation t df Sig. (2-tailed) Ask for help in physical and virtual .80769 1.28573 7.846 155 <.001 Share Learning materials in physical and virtual .87821 1.20933 9.070 155 <.001 Help others in physical and virtual .62179 1.09157 7.115 155 <.001 Peer learning can improve creativity in physical and virtual .53205 1.10961 5.989 155 <.001 Comparing work can develop own ideas in physical and virtual .51923 1.08045 6.002 155 <.001 Peer learning to develop new ideas in physical and virtual .57051 1.09020 6.536 155 <.001 Learn from others’ opinions in physical and virtual .76282 1.25010 7.622 155 <.001 According to Table 9, students consider informal social aspects, such as casual conversations with fellow students, to be crucial for their learning experience in traditional design studios. However, the school did not make sufficient efforts to preserve these aspects when students had to switch to remote learning during the pandemic. Thus, some students innovated some settings within their homes or other places to construct alternative studio environments. The result indicated that informal activities have significant impacts on architecture students’ peer learning. Table 9 Paired Sample Test between Informal Social Aspects within the Conventional Studio and Online Environment Pairs Mean Std. Deviation t df Sig. (2-tailed) Informal social aspects are important in the studio atmosphere, and the school has tried its best to maintain it in virtual ways 1.28846 1.62643 9.895 155 <.001 In summary, almost all statistics results show significant differences of “collaboration”, “study atmosphere”, “interindividual supports”, and “social aspects” between within conventional design studio and online environments. Even though, “doing individual learning” does not show significant difference between within physical and online environments. The following four sub-sections shows the specific ways that such factors affect architecture students’ informal learning activities between peers within physical and online environments. The Specific Ways of Architecture Students’ Informal Learning Activities between Peers Face-to-Face and Distance Contacts It was found from interviews that face-to-face and distance contacts determine to what extent that “collaboration” generate impacts to such learning experiences. Specifically, many architecture students’ learning experiences rely on the cooperation between fellows when they are engaged in extra-curricular activities, especially when they face tough issues requiring others’ help. For example: Student 1: “We three are now often learning within our studio together, and sometimes we also invite some other fellows to join us.” Student 2: “Yeah, sometimes we (Student 2 and Student 3) come earlier and study within hybrid studio, because we enjoy the quiet vibe without others’ disturbance.” Student 3: “Our unit started design process a little bit late, so I need to catch up the normal process… I need to ask for help from my fellows, and we three constitute a specific ‘helping group’." Alternatively, different from students who prefer learning within the environment of design studios, there is still a great portion of students who often learn in their properties outside formal sessions unless others invite them to study together, and they would only ask for help via communicating questions on WeChat or What’s App and search architectural articles or projects on Pinterest, ArchDaily, Instagram, and Youtube channels. For example: Student 4: “I have nearly no architecture knowledge and experience, so I feel embarrassed to express my ‘naïve ideas’ to the public or with my fellows around…Since the design projects are more conceptual in the first year, and we mostly have no previous experiences of architecture learning, most of we are still exploring the learning measures which suitable for ourselves.” Although social media or some specific communicational applications (i.e. Miro, Teams and Zoom) could support and innovate normal interactions between architecture students at extra-curricular activities, those students still highly rely on face-to-face contacts to achieve the activities which can only be done within the physical spaces. Personal acquisition from others Another impact of distance contact on architectural learning is that students learn from others. Since architecture students need to figure out complicated design tasks, including sites, regulations, materials, constructions, structures, economic benefits, etc., those individuals require multiple resources and comprehension, so they ought to rely more on peer learning, even though some are based on virtual approaches. However, just like the statement of the 1 st -Year Chair: “The peer learning atmosphere of architecture students should be cultivated within the design studio, but the pandemic and rules sourced from it prevent those students from physical contact for a whole year.” Nonetheless, some students still got used to learning individually and via social media. For instance: Student 4: “We mostly rely on YouTube channels to learn the key knowledge we need, rather than asking for help from peers even though we know that someone is pretty good at some points.” Student 5: “As you can see, we (architecture students) basically make and store physical models within the design studio, and others can walk close to observe the model-making techniques and model details…while it was hard to do when we were staring on our own laptop screens.” After all, students’ accounts above illustrate a difference between students’ acquisition within the physical design studio and the virtual environment. Comparatively, most students are more willing to ask for help and help others via face-to-face measures, even though others also accept communicating by virtual calls or meetings. In other words, students’ initiatives of engaging in face-to-face and distance contacts have become a shared repertoire to form their communities of practice. Studio Atmosphere and Its Alternatives It was found from the investigation that studio environment and its alternatives determine to what extent that “study atmosphere” generate impacts to such learning experiences. Specifically, to explore study atmosphere in detail, there was an observation of social learning experience, indicating that the occupation rate of the studio was 30%-40% in all studios, as shown in Field Notes 1.1-1, 13.00-15.00, 28 th April 2022: The common phenomenon is that most students tend to sit closely surrounded by a big table, and these ‘learning tables’ were separated within the studio, which means that there were different learning groups. Normally, each learning group consisted of 2-8 students while they were doing their own business rather than doing collaborative tasks. Even though some group members were chatting, others were still focused on their own stuff. Apart from the obvious learning group organised by some students spontaneously, a few others sat at the corner of the studio doing his/her own work, just 3-4 in total in each studio. Another phenomenon is that the learning groups usually consist of the same members. Specifically, Field Notes 1.1-3, 14.30-16.00, 15 th -18 th May 2022: There were always three students sitting together in the middle of the 3 rd -year studio for several hours in the afternoons, enabling a fixed peer learning group; In the meantime, there was another fixed learning group, consisting of 2-3 students, tending to organise peer learning within the hybrid studio. To explain those phenomena above, students were taken interviewed, and there was often “invisible pushing” detected among architecture students. Students call those “pushing” as “sweating” in the initiative, just like the individuals sweat a lot in the gym. In general, many students accept and immerse themselves in the “sweating” atmosphere. It is even noticeable that without “sweating” makes some students nervous because they have no idea what others’ design progress. Thus, architecture students who prefer studying within the design studio are highly likely to look around to check or ask about others’ work progress. For example: Student 8: “Since I presented the design outcome after each tutorial and crit, my fellows always say that I am so ‘sweating’, but they are the true persons who ‘sweating’ a lot. I really like this atmosphere, which can push me to innovate more new ideas, and they can also learn from mine.” Student 9: “I think that the sense of “sweating” is a good impetus for all of us. I feel that when I see others under pressure, it motivates me to catch up with them.” However, not every student regards “sweating” as a positive support to their own learning. By contrast, some students even receive bad effects from it. For instance: Student 11: “The ‘sweating’ atmosphere makes me tension a lot, so I hardly study within our design studio. I only went there to make physical models and my friends sometimes asked me for suggestions to their design projects.” Student 1: “He (Student 3) is “sweating” too much…he expressed negative tempers when he was ‘sweating’, and that emotion somehow influenced us in the meanwhile…That gave us too many pressures.” Compared with the “sweating” within the conventional design studio environment, it was found that the virtual learning environment can decrease the tension from individuals who fear “sweating”. For example: Student 12: “It is really nice to walk around to see others’ working progress within the design studio. I am keen on working within a social place, and our studio provides me with that place where friends are around, and we can share with each other about what happened recently. It’s helpful to distract me from pressure.” Student 10: “We study within the design studio from Monday to Friday and from day till night. It’s a nice place to leave our stuff here, our physical models on the table and draft drawing in the lockers there. The surrounding environment within the studio is important to motivate us to study hard.” Alternatively, many students articulated that they prefer studying in other spaces (such as tutorial space within the school building, their own rooms, and public learning spaces within student accommodation) if it is not necessary to study at the studio. Except for “sweating”, there are other reasons for those students’ choices, such as the “messy” environment within the design studio. Specifically, as shown in Figure 5, it is one typical design studio in Bute Building. It is full of group models, drawings, and pin-ups, which indicate the group work and shared learning materials made here then. Besides, some students’ learning experiences are disturbed by voices and even noises from other students within such an environment. For example: Student 14: “I come to the studio depending on if it is close to the deadline of submitting the final work…if it is close to the deadline, I usually learn within the studio; if not, I still prefer learning within my own home, due to the noisy environment in the studio.” Student 15: “I really like learning within the tidy environment, so I don’t like the working environment within the design studio. There are always people talking and the messy environment distract me from my work a lot… I prefer to study in my own home where is quiet and there is a long table to make sure my own work. Sometimes, I go to the building of Centre for Student Life to study, because it’s quiet as well.” Student 16: “I'm easily distracted when talking to the people around me, and I think it wastes my time that could be spent on my own work… I usually study in my own room to avoid the distractive stuff around me. When my flatmate wants to learn with me together, we sometimes go to the public space in our accommodation, because there are some specific spaces for small group learning.” Student 19: “The messy environment has negative effect on my learning outside formal sessions, so I usually study within the hybrid studio where is quiet, clear, and tidy, and it is more easily for me to engage in the environment of hybrid studio.” In addition, the commuting between their accommodation to the school is also a big matter to students’ choice of learning places because it wastes students’ precious time doing design projects. For instance: Student 17: “It highly depends on the weather if I travel from my accommodation to the school…Fortunately, we have options to attend tutorial online or onsite, and I usually choose to do it online when I don’t want to go to school…I need to take more time on commuting if it rains.” Student 18: “I am waiting for my fellow to study with me (within the hybrid studio). I live close to school, so I came earlier. She lives a little bit far away from school, so it takes some time to wait for her…we both agree to study here today.” In summary, except for the ones who typically do individual learning in their own home, wherever the studios in the school building or the self-organised studio in students’ accommodation, the majority of architecture students usually keep a studio culture just like when they study within the studio atmosphere. For example: 2 nd -Year Chair: “There are around ten architecture students living in the same house, mostly 2nd- and 3rd-year. They normally learn with each other within the living room, organising an environment just like a design studio.” Student 19: “…Having a well-designed work area in my room, with two separate desks - one for drawing and model-making, and another for the computer - has been beneficial when collaborating with my flatmates for group projects during the initial smaller modules in my third year. I believe that offering additional studio spaces easily accessible would greatly enhance productivity.”. Accordingly, architecture students generally have the tendency to engage in peer learning within the studio atmosphere wherever within their physical design studio or other non-timetabled learning spaces. This phenomenon has become a joint enterprise of their communities of practice. Peer-to-Peer Bonds It was found from the investigation that peer-to-peer bonds determine to what extent that “interindividual supports” generate impacts to such learning experiences. Specifically, there are two types of group learning among architecture students: the first one is learning in a shared place where multiple students are working, but they are all doing their own stuff; The other one is learning in a small group, usually organised by 2-4 people, but they are doing their own business as well, and those group members are usually settled rather than randomly organised. For example, Field notes 1.1-5, 12.30-13.30 12 th May 2022: Two students were doing informal crits, including introducing the project, getting familiar with each page of the portfolio, learning from others' advice and suggestions, and getting extra knowledge of architects and design projects to review and revise their own work. Because the 'critiques' were from familiars, the atmosphere of informal crits could have been more relaxed. There was no pressure of getting critiques and low scores, so the vibe was relaxed and hilarious. The process lasts just 10-20 minutes. However, the disadvantage was that the advice and suggestions were not critical, so they might need to be more accurate. The scene above usually happens between different individuals, and some students claimed that this way could literally inspire their design thinking further to develop their project. Another example indicates the stable bond connecting students in small groups (as shown in Figure 6). Field notes 2.1-3, 15.00-16.00 11 th May 2022: Two students (Student 1 and Student 2) were initially sitting on their own seats within a learning unit in the hybrid studio. Several minutes later, one student asked for help from another to install an analysing software on his laptop. The ‘tutorial’ process lasted more than half an hour because the software made false all the time, so they tried again and again several times. After the whole process, they said that they two are good friends, by the way, and they always learn together, sometime in their Year 3 design studio, but usually in the hybrid studio instead. That is the reason that they can help each other the very patience. However, not every interindividual bond is based on a ‘close friend’ mode. Some good relationships between students are generated by organised activities outside course time. For example: Student 20: “I believe that our relationships are connected with unit activities… The unit members (of the unit one) are drawing together these days, and they are really in good relationships after these days’ work.” Student 13: “As the president of Architecture Association in the school, I organised some activities such as dinner parties and tours for our students. Those activities literally help constitute the bonds between most individuals.” Those arguments reveal the unreplaceable physical peer-to-peer relationships regarding maintaining architectural peer learning, which implies that the virtual environment for keeping efficient architecture learning is still immature. As specialists in architecture pedagogy, such as self-organised tutorials, students require relative training to catch up the intuition and tacit knowledge. In contrast, no module or material for such training in virtual environments has yet been implemented. In a word, these peer-to-peer bonds between architecture students are categorised as their mutual engagement of communities of practice. The Form of A Community and/or A Group It was found from the investigation that the form of a community and/or a group determines to what extent that “social aspects” generate impacts to such learning experiences. Specifically, during observations, some students generate learning communities consisting of a large number of individuals. For example, as shown in Field notes 1.4-3, 13.00-15.00, 10 th May 2022: Within the design studio, there were some big group models made by students together, and everyone in the same group could use them. In addition to that, the community fosters a sense of indirect teamwork for students. Although they may be working on different tasks, they still come together as a collective. For instance, students work individually on their own computers, but being surrounded by peers doing similar things reminds them that they are not alone in their challenges. Moreover, within the studio setting, students can seek technical assistance from others, spontaneously and promptly, and receive feedback on their work. Furthermore, the face-to-face interactions among classmates can create nostalgic experiences that may prove beneficial for future projects or ventures. Anyway, it is very frequent for architecture students to create a “work zone”. However, only if there are opportunities for students to cultivate their social relationships, they are willing to spontaneously organise a stable learning group and even a learning community with multiple individuals. By contrast, if there are no opportunities for students to establish bonds with each other, they also may be reluctant to organise the learning communities on a broader scale than their specific learning group. In contrast to the learning community that includes numerous individuals, other learning groups are formed by a small group of students who typically have close relationships (usually 2-4), and they tend to exist for an extended period, sometimes for the entire semester. For example, as shown in Field notes 1.4-2, 13.30-14.00, 4 th May 2022: Five students are sitting around a long table. They were doing their own business, and sometimes two of them communicated with each other to talk about their design projects. One of those students was interviewed during the observation, and he indicated that their studio atmosphere was the best in three academic years Many students usually learn within the studio whenever. Except for students’ initiatives, some external factors also impact the organisation of learning communities and groups. Specifically, the living- and learning-support facilities nearby design studios, such as kitchen, benches, media lab, plotter room, printer room, library, etc. For example, Field Notes 1.3-2, 13.00-13.45, 21 st May 2022: About six students came out from the 2 nd -year design studio, two of them pointing to the kitchen just opposite the studio, and the other four went downstairs to catch up on their lunch at the vending machine on the ground floor or outside. About half an hour later, some of them sit on the benches in the corridor to have lunch and chat simultaneously. To have an entire scene of architecture students’ learning experiences, besides observations of their activities beyond their course time, some of them were interviewed as well to supplement some details of their ‘daily routines’ that happened within the building. For example: Student 13: “…some of them sitting at these benches to have lunch or snacks, and they chatted for a little while before going back to the studio…while others spent more time within the kitchen…I normally come here after lunch, but I usually use the computer within the IT room beside our studio, to upload design work so that I can print it in the plotter room just opposite to the IT room.” Thus, those students are more convenient to have access to such facilities to maintain their basic living and learning needs beyond their learning time. However, remote learning causes the loss of daily routine in some extent. For instance: Student 7: “in the past, we were able to see others' work and share various resources, including drawings, advice, and ideas. However, this interaction was limited to conversations conducted through screens due to distance.” After all, besides students’ initiatives, the form of students’ learning groups and/or learning community is easy to be influenced by some outside factors as well. However, those factors are not affecting individuals equally. In contrast, they may lead to opposite attitudes, especially the messy environment within the design studio. Some students cannot bear it at all, but others think that it inspires their design thinking. Accordingly, whatever a community or a group, they both belong to a joint enterprise of communities of practice, which are constituted by architecture students’ informal learning activities between peers. Discussion The discussion between previous studies and two parts of this study is elaborated on in the following paragraphs: (1) As the statement in many other studies, design learning is tightly guided by the cycle of interactive and continuous feedback (Fleischmann 2019), as well as ‘studio culture’ (Koch et al. 2002). Research has identified that social interactions, active learning, and social engagement (Fleischmann 2019, Lee 2006) assume a crucial role in the learning process (Kvan 2001, Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick 2006). Furthermore, online learning platforms can promote these learning activities (Vosinakis and Koutsabasis 2013; Ceylan 2021; Yu et al. 2022). The findings of this study in the paper validate these theories and also present additional key factors that have significant different between architecture students’ peer learning within physical and online environments, including collaboration, individual acquisition of knowledge, the studio environment, and informal social aspects. Cuff (1991) acknowledges that the majority of architecture students have a deficiency in communication and interpersonal skills. Therefore, in order to guarantee that architecture students' peer learning experiences in the virtual environment are just as beneficial as those in the studio environment, it is necessary to strengthen the collaborations, personal acquisition, and informal social aspects between peers and maintain a studio atmosphere. (2) Most previous studies primarily examine how design studio tutors facilitate peer learning experiences within the structured course setting (e.g. Marshalsey and Sclater 2020, Fleischmann 2019, Attoe, and Mugerauer 1991, Park 2020, Alnusairat, D. A. and Maani, A. Al-Jokhadar 2021, Vosinakis, Koutsabasis 2013, Uluoglu 2000, Kvan 2001, Pektaş 2015, Morton 2020). However, this study explores the main themes and characteristics of architecture students' informal learning between peers. Specifically, participation in the studio environment did not follow a discrete peer learning mode, and every student may actively engage in an environment that may not be practical for others (Morton 2020). For example, this paper finds that the peer learning mode constituted by architecture students’ informal learning between peers is not a certain concept. Indeed, it is constituted by face-to-face contact, affected by peer-to-peer bonds, and synthesising the studio environment and the form of a community. Conclusion The two research questions, which are “to pinpoint the key factors that have a significant impact on architecture students' experiences of peer learning in both the design studio and online settings” and “to investigate the specific ways in which architecture students engage in informal learning activities between peers”, were explored the specific answer. To address the first research question, the quantitative part of this study identifies the key factors that significantly influence these experiences. It highlights the importance of both physical and online environments in architecture education. This study successfully addresses the gaps in knowledge regarding the effectiveness of peer learning when there is no pre-arranged planning of pedagogical modules. In conclusion, to foster peer learning among students, the virtual environment should explore various alternative functions and measures to support, enhance, and potentially revolutionize the process. To answer the second research question, the qualitative part of this paper identified key characteristics of architecture students’ informal learning between peers: Students’ interactions between peers are various, and they mostly rely on specific physical environments, which include the design studio and tutorial spaces. Regarding the design studio, both the interactions among students within it and the learning communities organized by students are considered integral parts of the studio environment for architecture students. As for the interactions that occur between students, they are mostly based on students’ mutual characteristics. These shared characteristics lead architecture students to form their peer-to-peer bonds. All the stuff is illustrated as a group and/or a community for architecture students. Specifically, the community is normally organised by many students in the same academic year, and 2-5 individuals constitute the group. Implications This paper provides references to the research field with suggestions to optimise the studio environment. For instance, the design of the studio environment ought to facilitate both face-to-face and remote interactions among students. This implies that there should be diverse types of spaces that can accommodate physical interactions as well as blended learning activities. Moreover, within the design studio, it should offer multiple spatial configurations. These configurations would enable students to form small-scale learning groups and large-scale learning communities, thereby creating more opportunities for the formation of peer-to-peer bonds among them. Limitation and Further Research All study findings in this paper are sourced from undergraduate architecture students, so future work should extend the research field to architectural students at other academic levels. In addition, the investigation period was set at the point when the “work from home” policy had just ended, so the side effects brought by learning in isolation and distance still exist, which may cause the study result not to be precise. Future studies can further do a similar investigation later, to check if those side effects fade in the post-pandemic era. Declarations Declaration of Conflicting Interests The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Funding Declaration There is no funding for this study. Data Availability Statement The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request Author Contribution Jierui Wang contributed to writing the main manuscript, methodology, data collection, data analysis, and paper reviewing. References Achten H., Koszewski K., Martens B. (2011). What happened after the “Hype” on Virtual Design Studios?: Some Considerations for a Roundtable Discussion . RESPECTING FRAGILE PLACES 29th eCAADe Conference Proceedings. University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Architecture (Slovenia) 21-24 September 2011. Alnusairat S. Maani D. A. Al-Jokhadar A. (2021). Architecture students’ satisfaction with and perceptions of online design studios during COVID-19 lockdown: the case of Jordan universities, International Journal of Architectural Research. 15 (1) 219-236. Anklam P. (2009). Ten years of NetWork. The Learning Organization 16(6), pp. 415-426. Attoe W., Mugerauer R. (1991). Excellent Studio Teaching in Architecture, Studies in Higher Education . 16 (1) 41-50. Baker T. L. 3rd ed. (1999). Doing social research . New York; London: McGraw-Hill. Belluigi D. Z. (2016). Construction of roles in studio teaching and learning. The International Journal of Art & Design Education 35(1), pp. 21-35. Boone H. N. J., Boone, D. A. (2012). Analyzing Likert Data. Journal of Extension 50(2). Boud, D., Cohen, R. & Sampson, J. (2001). Peer learning in higher education: Learning from and with each other. London: Kogan Page. Bryman A. (1992). Quantitative and Qualitative Research: Further Reflections on Their Integration. In: Brannen, J. eds. Mixing Methods: Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Routledge, pp. 57-80. Burke, A. (2015). Curating School Cultures: Studios in the Context of School Agendas. In Bates, D., Mitsogianni, V., & Ramirez-Lovering, D. eds. Studio Futures: Changing trajectories in architectural education . Melbourne: Uro Publications, pp. 9-13. Cattell R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research , I, 245-276. Ceylan S., Sahin P., Seçmen S., Somer M. E., Suher K. H. (2021). An evaluation of online architectural design studios during COVID-19 outbreak. International Journal of Architectural Research 15(1), pp. 203-218. Chen W. (2016). Exploring the learning problems and resource usage of undergraduate industrial design students in design studio courses. Int J Technol Des Educ 26, pp. 461-487. Cherry, K. (2024). What Is Sociocultural Theory? Recognizing the role that society and socialization play in learning. Available at: https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-sociocultural-theory-2795088 [Accessed in: 13 June 2025] Coffey A., Atkinson P. (1996). Making Sense of Qualitative Data: Complementary Research Strategies . Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications Ltd. Connaway L. S., Powell, R. 5th ed. (2010). Basic research methods for librarians . Santa Barbara, CA: Libraries Unlimited. Cross N. et al. (1996). Analysing Design Activity. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Cuff D. (1991). Architecture: the Story of Practice . Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Denzin N. K. 3rd ed. (1989). The research act: a theoretical introduction to sociological methods . Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall. El-Hussein M. O. M. (2012). Towards a theory of mobile learning: The design of learning spaces for the higher education landscape . PhD Thesis, Faculty of Informatics and Design, Cape Peninsula University of Technology. Fleischmann K. (2019). From studio practice to online design education: Can we teach design online?, Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology . 45 (1) 1-19. Flick U. (2020). Introducing Research Methodology . London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Frankfort-Nachmias C., Nachmias D. 7th ed. (2008). Research Methods in the Social Science . New York: Worth Publishers Geertz C. (1973). Thick Description: Towards an interpretive theory of culture. Geertz, C. eds. In The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays . New York: Basic Books, pp. 3-30. Charmaz K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. London: SAGE Publications. Ghassan A., Bohemia E. (2015). The Global Studio: Incorporating Peer-Learning into the Design Curriculum. Art 5(1), pp. 1-11. Gillham B. (2008). Observation Techniques: Structured to Unstructured . London; New York: Continuum International Publishing Group. Gillham B. (2008). Small-Scale Social Survey Methods . London; New York: Continuum International Publishing Group. Gray C. M. (2013). Informal peer critique and the negotiation of habitus in a design studio . J. B. Reitan, et al. eds. Proceedings of DRS // CUMULUS 2013, 2nd International Conference for Design Education Researchers. Oslo. 14-17 May 2013. Guest G., et al. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods 18(1). pp. 59-82. Güler K. (2015). Social media-based learning in the design studio: A comparative study, Computers & Education. 87 192-203. Ham J. J., Schnabel M. A. (2011). Web 2.0 virtual design studio: social networking as facilitator of design education. Architectural Science Review 54(2), 108-116. Harding J. 2nd ed. (2019). Qualitative Data Analysis: From Start to Finish . London: Sage. Harrison,A., Hutton L. (2014). Design for the changing educational landscape: space, place and the future of learning . London; New York: Routledge. Hettithanthri U., Hansen P. (2022). Design studio practice in the context of architectural education: a narrative literature review. International Journal of Technology and Design Education 32, pp: 2343-2364 Ioannou O. (2018). Opening up design studio education using blended and networked formats. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education 15(47), pp. 1-16. Iranmanesh A., Onur Z. (2021). Mandatory Virtual Design Studio for All: Exploring the Transformations of Architectural Education amidst the Global Pandemic. iJADE 40(1), pp. 251-267. Jamieson, S. (2017). How to: Analyse Qualitative Data . Tombs, M. eds. Series: How to:. Cardiff: School of Postgraduate Medical and Dental Education, Wales College of Medicine, Cardiff University. Kaiser H.F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement 20, pp. 141-151. Kaplan A. M., Haenlein M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media. Business Horizons 53, pp. 59-68. Koch A., Schwennsen K., Dutton T. A., Smith D. (2002). The Redesign of Studio Culture . Available at: http://www.aias.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/The_Redesign_of_Studio_Culture_2002.pdf [Accessed: 26 June 2020]. Komarzy´nska-´Swie´sciak E., Adams B., Thomas L. (2021). Transition from Physical Design Studio to Emergency Virtual Design Studio. Available Teaching and Learning Methods and Tools—A Case Study. Buildings 2021, 11, 312. Krejcie R. V., Morgan D.W. (1970). Determine Sample Size For Research Activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement 30, pp. 607-610. Kvan T. (2001). The pedagogy of virtual design studios, Automation in Construction. 10 345-353. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0926-5805(00)00051-0 Lave, J., and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lee N. (2006). Design as a learning cycle: A conversational experience. Studies in Learning, Evaluation Innovation and Development 3(2), pp. 12-22. McClean D., Hourigan N. (2013). Critical Dialogue in Architecture Studio: Peer Interaction and Feedback. Journal for Education in the Built Environment 8(1), pp. 35-57. Marshalsey L., Sclater M. (2020). Together but Apart: Creating and Supporting Online Learning Communities in an Era of Distributed Studio Education, iJADE . 39 (4) 826-840. https://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12331 McCombes S. (2019). Sampling Methods | Types and Techniques Explained. Available at: https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/sampling-methods/ [Accessed in: 11 March 2022] Mohajan H. K., (2018). Qualitative research methodology in social sciences and related subjects. Journal of Economic Development, Environment and People 7(1), pp. 23-48. Morton J. (2012). Communities of practice in higher education: A challenge from the discipline of architecture, Linguistics and Education. 23 100-111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2011.04.002 Nicol D. and Macfarlane-Dick D. (2006). Formative assessment and self regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education 31(2), pp. 199-218. Orr S., Bloxham S. (2012). Making judgements about students making work: Lecturers’ assessment practices in art and design, Arts & Humanities in Higher Education . 12 (2-3) 234-253. Östlund U., et al. (2011). Combining qualitative and quantitative research within mixed method research designs: A methodological review. International Journal of Nursing Studies 48(2011), pp. 369-383. Park S. (2020). Rethinking design studios as an integrative multi-layered collaboration environment, Journal of Urban Design. 25 (4) 523-550. Pektaş Ş. T. (2015). The virtual design studio on the cloud: a blended and distributed approach for technology-mediated design education. Architectural Science Review 58(3), pp. 255-265. Phillippi J., Lauderdale J. (2018). A Guide to Field Notes for Qualitative Research: Context and Conversation. Qualitative Health Research , 28(3), pp. 381- 388. Pelman, B., Zoran, A. R. (2023). Informal learning in architectural education through sociomaterial approaches: Towards a network-based pedagogy in design education. The Design Journal , 26(5), pp. 776-797. Riche P. L., Tanner, K. eds (1998). Observation and its Application to Social Work: Rather Like Breathing . London; Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Roberts, A., Coombs, S. (2023). Conceptualising the Architectural Curriculum around Knowing, Acting and Being. Proceedings of aae 2023 Productive-Disruptive: spaces of exploration in-between architectural pedagogy and practice. Cardiff, UK. 12-15th July 2023. Rodgers P. A., Caldwell N. H. M., Clarkson P. J., Huxor A. P. (2001). The management of concept design knowledge in modern product development organizations. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 14(1), pp. 108-115. Rodriguez C., et al. (2018). Collaborative learning in architectural education: Benefits of combining conventional studio, virtual design studio and live projects. British Journal of Educational Technology 49(3), pp. 337-353. Schön D.A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action . Aldershot: Ashgate. Schön, D.A. (1985). The design studio: an exploration of its traditions and potential . London: RIBA Publications Ltd. Shaffer D.W. (2003). Portrait of the Oxford design studio: An ethnography of design pedagogy. WCER Working Paper 2003-11 . Madison: University of Wisconsin-Madison. Uluoglu B. (2000). Design knowledge communicated in studio critiques, Design Studies. 21 (1) 33-58. Vosinakis S., Koutsabasis P. (2013). Interaction Design Studio Learning in Virtual Worlds. Virtual Reality 17, pp. 59-75. Author. (2023). The comparison between architecture students’ peer learning outside formal timetable activities within physical and virtual environments during the COVID-19 pandemic. Indoor and Built Environment , 32(10), pp. 2064-2082. Watkins M. W. (2018). Exploratory Factor Analysis: A Guide to Best Practice. Journal of Black Psychology , 44(3), 219–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095798418771807 Webster, H. (2005). The Architectural Review A study of ritual, acculturation and reproduction in architectural education. Arts & Humanities in Higher Education 4(3), pp. 265–282. Webster H. (2008). Architectural Education after Schön: Cracks, Blurs, Boundaries and Beyond. Journal for Education in the Built Environment 3(2), pp. 63-74. Wenger, E. (1998). Community of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. New York: Cambridge University Press. Williamson K. (2018). Populations and samples. In: Williamson, K. and Johanson, G. eds. Research Methods: Information, Systems, and Contexts . Elsvier Ltd, pp. 359-377. Yorgancıoglu D., Tunali S. (2020). Changing pedagogic identities of tutors and students in the design studio: Case study of desk and peer critiques. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education 19(1), pp. 19-32. Yu R., Ostwald M. J., Gu N., Skates H., Feast S. (2022). Evaluating the effectiveness of online teaching in architecture courses. Architectural Science Review 65(2), pp. 89-100. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files Appendices.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 23 Feb, 2026 Reviews received at journal 27 Jan, 2026 Reviews received at journal 21 Jan, 2026 Reviews received at journal 11 Jan, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 09 Jan, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 09 Jan, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 08 Jan, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 07 Jan, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 07 Jan, 2026 Reviewers invited by journal 07 Jan, 2026 Editor invited by journal 17 Dec, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 22 Nov, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 06 Nov, 2025 First submitted to journal 06 Nov, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7888358","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":571590308,"identity":"3f9dd26d-d749-4429-9db0-e8fe2e495ea0","order_by":0,"name":"Jierui Wang","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Chang'an University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jierui","middleName":"","lastName":"Wang","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-10-17 16:08:23","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7888358/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7888358/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":100358260,"identity":"5b84c54a-04ba-4799-8c21-f6f404f57138","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-16 07:20:48","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":1172923,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"AStudyofAnalysingCharacteristicsofStudentsInformalLearningbetweenPeers.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7888358/v1/1d7fe9b5e80f08d22b390082.docx"},{"id":99871289,"identity":"2f1020f4-b3e9-4504-83ba-7eef99dc845e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-09 09:17:30","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":3476,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"cefe1cc7dcf64c36b0747ef49934ae05.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7888358/v1/ac5632bc673b6b887652529c.json"},{"id":100358322,"identity":"02525540-b339-47e2-8d80-3c7726206a65","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-16 07:20:54","extension":"xml","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":194335,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"cefe1cc7dcf64c36b0747ef49934ae051enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7888358/v1/75152d9e4d2c742339ea51bf.xml"},{"id":99871293,"identity":"ba5a6b26-0a4b-4f59-a5ef-778457585d8d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-09 09:17:30","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":109304,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7888358/v1/a66b788c6d9522e8abfb7b7b.png"},{"id":100358400,"identity":"b502da21-2b52-4aa0-a6b0-74870d4b3080","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-16 07:21:01","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":40966,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7888358/v1/832afbdafa2aa8126ab1a8af.png"},{"id":100358078,"identity":"73fc1eab-fc16-4787-9fa6-43dc8b9e7979","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-16 07:20:38","extension":"jpeg","order_by":5,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":462570,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7888358/v1/59b9bcf993cee385742d5256.jpeg"},{"id":100357517,"identity":"cd20e4a8-5c22-4d39-9091-49686c872a38","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-16 07:19:59","extension":"jpeg","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":428797,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage4.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7888358/v1/365b6bba9e274f1155a2e4d1.jpeg"},{"id":99871300,"identity":"e405a3d1-3b23-4e6b-aacf-443787d9d459","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-09 09:17:30","extension":"jpeg","order_by":7,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":65153,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"groupimage1.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7888358/v1/ca3817eddb142d22a979d321.jpeg"},{"id":99871296,"identity":"8451e55a-c3f1-40cf-9a8d-82bc5d721422","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-09 09:17:30","extension":"jpeg","order_by":8,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":19701,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"groupimage2.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7888358/v1/62d43ac029a8082d30228c96.jpeg"},{"id":100358199,"identity":"526a633b-8365-4128-b6c0-a194ee1727bd","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-16 07:20:43","extension":"png","order_by":9,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":36900,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7888358/v1/090c8d58be77156bf6294ca4.png"},{"id":99871305,"identity":"eb748327-18a0-47fe-b03c-dd6ad11d1e0a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-09 09:17:31","extension":"png","order_by":10,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":14501,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7888358/v1/d94cdf61b80b3d7cdee2b986.png"},{"id":99871303,"identity":"b758a6c7-5242-4166-86dd-59611dbb7bd1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-09 09:17:31","extension":"png","order_by":11,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":142910,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7888358/v1/c9d7b28b9e3168fd3d2a2698.png"},{"id":99871308,"identity":"c20c6f6c-cf3a-42c9-b89b-a0298697d069","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-09 09:17:31","extension":"png","order_by":12,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":130092,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7888358/v1/f12ebbeb03034e57a024a80c.png"},{"id":100358301,"identity":"8aa4a5ad-3d76-4955-8ed7-e55b2a67b05f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-16 07:20:53","extension":"png","order_by":13,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":35612,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinegroupimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7888358/v1/0e4bb1357332fe3ebde34c29.png"},{"id":99871302,"identity":"caa6580c-1c30-43a4-9bc9-c5713a61f9cc","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-09 09:17:30","extension":"png","order_by":14,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":6570,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinegroupimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7888358/v1/df10bbadf35bf5fb50d44814.png"},{"id":99871306,"identity":"62efd9db-f6d7-4b21-987b-7c36e93bfa3d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-09 09:17:31","extension":"xml","order_by":15,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":191984,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"cefe1cc7dcf64c36b0747ef49934ae051structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7888358/v1/4c410deae961fb8c13b1d9e3.xml"},{"id":99871309,"identity":"bde668fd-b0cd-4b89-b4cb-9e74d8e63702","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-09 09:17:31","extension":"html","order_by":16,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":204273,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7888358/v1/f2440bf97659f21c005f6dd8.html"},{"id":99871285,"identity":"2939038f-f0a3-45d1-b52e-69d19da9f529","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-09 09:17:30","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":458125,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThe literature regarding researching architecture students’ learning experiences within the design studio and online environments\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7888358/v1/c7b2055ae2784bcad6cbc290.png"},{"id":99871287,"identity":"7c63480d-7029-4985-87ca-6494fd4a852a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-09 09:17:30","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":307604,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e‘Sampling size table’ designed by Krejcie \u0026amp; Morgan (1970)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7888358/v1/be65900eb1698733671f4390.png"},{"id":99871291,"identity":"bb88b531-f573-495a-855c-785de045c87d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-09 09:17:30","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":176163,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThe framework of observation sampling\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7888358/v1/732e9c61e96f64a6dd3015b4.png"},{"id":99871290,"identity":"914eca2d-c115-4ea4-9cde-70de7d119525","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-09 09:17:30","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":67840,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eScreen Plot displays the Specific Component and Eigenvalues\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7888358/v1/1e01b5f48e63f84e96c719ec.png"},{"id":99871292,"identity":"4b5fe9f7-bebe-46bd-8dd9-8f077bca6b4c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-09 09:17:30","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":539553,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThe “messy” environment within the design studio (taken by the author)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7888358/v1/eea3a07d255333998f54e17e.png"},{"id":99871298,"identity":"6fd836c1-3072-4eb3-8181-504a3b730e09","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-09 09:17:30","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"Figure 6","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":461058,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eTwo ‘close friends’ working on an analysing software in the very patient (taken by the author)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"6.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7888358/v1/cdb22da9c5fea89388bf8a99.png"},{"id":100421869,"identity":"8d4c8b62-354c-48ed-8e79-fcb5d70190d0","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-16 13:59:06","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":3260003,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7888358/v1/2ef29ab3-81db-4881-b21e-7e794d69c941.pdf"},{"id":99871286,"identity":"eb60c1ed-57d0-4316-8789-0c468722b9fd","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-09 09:17:30","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":16253,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Appendices.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7888358/v1/c0cf3721bb1c06123f8998ad.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"A Study of Analysing Characteristics of Students’ Informal Learning between Peers within Different Environments--- Taking British Architecture Schools as Examples","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eSince the past few decades, virtual and distance learning contexts have been introduced in tertiary education, so university students have more alternative learning measures (Boys 2011, p. 141). As stated by Roberts and Coombs (2023), the current architectural education, at least in UK, has enabled architecture students to not only regard architectural profession as their only goal when they are graduated but also to prepare on the challenge of the world. To accomplish this, educational spaces need to be equipped with specific devices and facilities. This enables flexibility and provides optimal support for the learners and their learning environment (Johnson 2018, p. xi). In these roles, online learning environments in the distance, particularly, are perceived as promoting significant venues which strengthen formal teaching and flourish students\u0026rsquo; lives, learning and work (Jesus et al. 2014). In addition, due to the COVID-19 pandemic worldwide from the beginning of 2020 till 2022, almost all higher educational institutions had been forced to move their education methods from face-to-face to distance and remote measures (UNESCO 2020).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHowever, in architecture as a practice-based discipline (Fleischmann, 2019), students\u0026rsquo; learning experiences generally rely on the specific learning space, which indicates the design studio, and the specific environment, which deems \u0026ldquo;studio culture\u0026rdquo; (Vowles 2012). Thus, their learning methods changed a lot when they were introduced to online environments in remote during the \u0026ldquo;work from home\u0026rdquo; (Iranmanesh and Onur, 2021), which had lasted one and a half year in the UK. This study employs both quantitative and qualitative approaches to investigate the experiences of architecture students\u0026rsquo; informal leaning activities between peers, to investigate the key factors that significantly impact students\u0026apos; learning experiences in different environments.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eDesign Studio and Students\u0026rsquo; Peer Learning within It\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDesign studio refers to a conventional and heart space for practice-based art and design education, providing students with a valid learning space to absorb knowledge in such diverse fields (Marshalsey and Sclater 2020; Fleischmann 2019; Attoe and Mugerauer 1991; Orr and Bloxham 2012). Design studio teaching appeared in architectural education around the 19th century since it was recognised that conventional classroom teaching could not succeed in teaching design (Sch\u0026ouml;n 1985), so the relative theories and practices have developed for over a century. Sch\u0026ouml;n (1983) proposed the concept that the design studio teacher serves as a \u0026quot;coach\u0026quot; or \u0026quot;instructor\u0026quot;, guiding students to conform to disciplinary norms and begin to adopt the mindset of an architect. In addition, Park (2020) indicated that, within the architectural design studio, students are often assigned diverse and extensive design projects ranging from landscapes to buildings, and encompassing both public and private spaces. Besides, the design studio should also cultivate students\u0026rsquo; creative thinking and problem-solving abilities via the views outside the design studio environment (Hettithanthri and Hansen 2022). Thus, design students\u0026rsquo; learning is guided by individual and ongoing feedback and is informed by a cycle of action and reflection (Fleischmann 2019), leading to various learning and even living experiences happening in the design studio, composing \u0026lsquo;studio culture\u0026rsquo; (Koch et al. 2002). Johnson (2000), and Vosinakis and Koutsabasis (2013) indicated that learning activities in the design studio include: the design brief, the desk crit, the interplay of design thinking and practice, and the design review. Such activities are deemed catalysts to improve students\u0026rsquo; creative thinking and techniques (Fleischmann 2019) and interaction and self-evaluation (Park 2020) by means of comparing with others\u0026rsquo; work (G\u0026uuml;ler 2015). Within the studio culture, Kvan (2001) and Pektaş (2015) articulated that students can experience the design process within an optimal learning community, which is helpful in evoking students\u0026rsquo; perception of being an architect (Koch et al. 2002). The culture identifies that social interactions, active learning, and social engagement (Fleischmann 2019, Lee 2006) play a premium role in the process of architectural learning (Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick 2006). All learning activities, as cited in Cherry (2024), just proved the theory of cognitive development proposed by Vygotsky, who emphasized that human development relies on social interactions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNevertheless, the design studio and its culture are not ideal platforms for teaching architecture due to various challenges, including hierarchical tutor-student relationships (Morton 2012), a lack of authenticity of practice (Webster 2005), and an emphasis on cultivating isolated architects instead of collaborative professionals (Buchanan 2012). For example, Yorgancioglu and Tunali (2020) concluded that conventional studio teaching makes the tutor acts as an expert or authority, enabling students to behave and interact less within the design studio and tend to develop specialised tactics to fulfil the tutor\u0026rsquo;s preferences. More than that, G\u0026uuml;ler (2015) cited that the duration of interactions between tutor and students are usually limited during the desk crit (Tate and Osborne 2013). Those issues indicate that only relying on formal teaching is insufficient to successfully educate architecture students because students who combine active and passive architectural learning appear to comprehended the discipline better (Webster 2008). Thus, Pelman and Zoran (2023) emphasised that students\u0026rsquo; informal learning activities are dominant in architecture education, since students can normally grasp their intuition and tacit knowledge of architectural design via engaging with complex and open-ended problems as when they work on design projects.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSpecifically, the peer learning between students has become a prior part of studio culture and taken up more time for students\u0026rsquo; learning experiences within design studios (Achten et al. 2011). Boud et al. (2001) contended that peer learning can be regarded as small-group activities where individuals of equal status actively help each other formally and informally. Nevertheless, architectural design is a knowledge-intensive activity (Rodgers et al. 2001), but architecture students\u0026rsquo; knowledge and experiences are less than tutors. Thus, students\u0026rsquo; peer learning is somehow affected by the power relationships between the tutor and students (Ioannou 2018; Yorgancioglu and Tunali 2020), determined by different levels of knowledge and experience (Dutton 1991; Ghassan and Bohemia 2015) and the limited time that tutors afford for individual students (McClean and Hourigan 2013). For example, students receive feedback from the tutor throughout the process of a design project (Belluigi 2016); the dialogue between the tutor and student enables the latter to realise and evaluate others\u0026rsquo; project\u0026rsquo;s potential and constraints (Orr and Bloxham 2012); feedback is shared among students as they express their opinions regarding others\u0026rsquo; design works (Gray 2013). Therefore, Pelman and Zoran (2023) claimed that previous studies usually ignore architecture students\u0026rsquo; informal learning between peers, since they are hard to be tracked by studio tutors. This gap provides this paper an opportunity to trace students\u0026rsquo; informal learning activities between peers within the design studio and other spaces where students constitute alike studio environments. Consequently, the theory of \u0026ldquo;community of practice\u0026rdquo;, which is initially proposed by Lave and Wenger (1991), was introduced to research such learning experiences.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eArchitecture Students\u0026rsquo; Learning Experiences within Different Environments\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn nowadays, the studio tutor and students have been introduced to conducting teaching and learning via internet-based and distance learning methods, within which resources can be accessed independently of time and place (Anklam 2009, Kaplan and Haenlein 2010). This trend enabled students to engage in informal learning activities between peers more flexibly and easily. Thus, Harrison and Hutton (2014) and King (2016) argued that even though ample physical space is available to support collaborative work, online spaces are the preferred spaces for collaboration, which can add value to formal classroom-based learning and enhance learners\u0026rsquo; overall learning experience (El-Hussein 2012, p. iii). Especially when the COVID-19 pandemic began, all educational and study processes in higher education were moved into online and virtual environments without preparation, and it also happened in the architectural discipline (Komarzy\u0026acute;nska- \u0026acute;Swie\u0026acute;sciak et al. 2021). Thus, architecture students\u0026rsquo; peer learning within physical and online learning environments\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThere have long been multiple studies focused on the applications of online and distance learning measures in architectural education (Ioannou 2018). For example, most previous researchers compared students\u0026rsquo; performances and self-assessment of their learning experiences within physical and virtual design studios. They utilised a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods to collect and analyse data, ensuring the analysis of exhaustive learning experiences collected from qualitative approaches and making it easier to compare the distinct learning performances collected from quantitative approaches. Figure 1 illustrates some representative studies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGenerally, quantitative methods were initially used to assist the qualitative methods. For example, in the survey conducted by Chen (2016), closed-ended questions were employed to determine the most challenging design tasks according to participants\u0026apos; perspectives. On the other hand, open-ended questions were utilised to identify the issues and resources that students encountered and utilised in each design task. The results illustrated that instructors, peers, and the Internet were the most useful learning resources. In the study conducted by Rodriguez et al. (2018), the online surveys consisted of multiple-choice and ordinal scale questions specifically developed to assess students\u0026apos; levels of motivation and engagement. As for the online studio designed by Marshalsey and Sclater (2020), the online survey was first sent to recruit undergraduate and postgraduate students. After collecting survey data, the analysis of this survey-led case study involved narrative inquiry and thematic analysis to interpret the participants\u0026rsquo; responses to survey questions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHowever, the quantitative methods used in the literature above were assisted measures to determine the sample size and distinguish specific groups of samples for qualitative methods. Thus, none of them deemed as the specific methods to analyse the comparison between architecture students\u0026rsquo; learning experiences within the conventional design studio and online environment in the distance, let alone testing if the parametric or the nonparametric analysis is appropriate to do the analysis. Additionally, those studies were all based on pre-arranged projects or pedagogical modules, so specific platforms and training were prepared for the study participants, who could have some anticipations and stereotypes of their learning experiences within the online environments. Thus, the research outcome from those previous studies may not fit the condition that students are engaged in online environments by accident without preparations, such as the \u0026ldquo;work from home\u0026rdquo; policy caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eResearch question\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the study conducted by Rodriguez et al. (2018), the online surveys consisted of multiple-choice and ordinal scale questions specifically developed to assess students\u0026apos; levels of motivation and engagement. Besides, there were few focuses on students\u0026rsquo; experiences of informal learning activities between peers. This study intends to research such learning activities experienced by architecture students, devoted to evaluating different ways of these learning activities engaged in physical and virtual learning environments. The result will ultimately contribute to the development of architectural education, architectural learning modules, and the physical and virtual learning environments in architecture. Accordingly, the research question shall be answered:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTo pinpoint the key factors that have a significant impact on architecture students\u0026apos; experiences of peer learning in both the design studio and online settings.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTo investigate the specific ways in which architecture students engage in informal learning activities between peers.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003eTo answer the research question above, the data collection method of this study applied data triangulation (Denzin 1989, p. 25; Harding 2019, p. 19), which has been increasingly seen as a legitimate method for gathering and analysing data in social science research fields (\u0026Ouml;stlund et al. 2011), since its ability to effectively combine and utilise the strengths of both quantitative and qualitative approaches (\u0026Ouml;stlund et al. 2011) by combining the two methods pragmatically (Flick 2020, p. 210). Specifically, according to Cross et al. (1996, p. 14), the qualitative approach focuses on analysing long-term processes and processual aspects (Bryman 1992, pp. 59-61), generating exhaustive descriptions of peer learning experiences with underlying patterns and context that give the information meaning. As for the quantitative part, it is generally to make data with universality, to analyse structural aspects (Bryman 1992, pp. 59-61).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eData Collection\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp id=\"_Toc123840802\"\u003eIn this study, the process of collecting data was separated into two stages. In specific, the first stage was conducted on a general scale, which was from three British architectural schools by sending questionnaires, to detect architecture students\u0026rsquo; peer learning experiences in physical design studios and virtual learning environments; Since the general peer learning experiences were found in the first stage, the second stage was conducted in one specific British architecture school, through taking observations and interviews to students when they engaged in informal learning activities between peers. The following sections elaborate on the specific methods used for detailed data collection.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eQuestionnaire\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp id=\"_Toc123840803\"\u003eTo examine the research questions, this paper designed data collection questions that focus on the experiences and interactions of architecture students in peer learning scenarios, including both pre-pandemic and during the pandemic. The gathered data uncovered the challenges, transformations, and innovations that students encountered during peer learning activities amidst the pandemic, with the aim of evaluating and comparing these approaches. This paper cites the quantitative methods employed in previous relevant research to validate its findings. The conclusions are corroborated by quantitative data gathered from studying students\u0026apos; learning behaviours, involvement, and self-evaluations, all of which support the conclusions drawn (e.g. Ham and Schnabel 2011, Pektaş 2015, Chen 2016, Rodriguez et al. 2018). One prevalent quantitative measure utilised in previous studies is the implementation of Likert-scale questions (e.g. Vosinakis and Koutsabasis 2013, Pektaş 2015, Rodriguez et al. 2018). In terms of reliability, this paper utilised Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s Alpha to assess the internal consistency of the questionnaire. The findings indicate that the Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s Alpha value of the questionnaire exceeds 0.89, signifying strong internal consistency. To put it simply, all questions are trustworthy in assessing the specific aspect that this research strives to measure.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe questionnaire was intended for students enrolled at three British architectural schools, which are Cardiff University, The University of Sheffield, and The University of Edinburgh. Their architectural education is ranked in QS University Ranking System, which means that their education level is officially authorised; it also indicates that they are global institutions with more probability of students from different background, so the data would be various; besides, their pedagogy and educational mode of architecture are typical but specific compared with other institutions. Accordingly, there are distinct traits and characteristics of architectural pedagogies in such institutions enabling various learning of architecture students, to make data richer.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eObservation\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAfter collecting quantitative data via the questionnaire, architecture students\u0026rsquo; specific informal learning activities between peers was furthermore collected by means of qualitative research measures. In this paper, semi-structured observation was initially employed. This is because the research aims to identify practical problems that individuals encounter (Gillham 2008, p.19). Hence, during the process, students\u0026rsquo; peer learning experiences were observed. Given that this approach is continuous, gathering these initial reflections can be helpful in guiding and offering suggestions for analysing alternative data collection methods (Phillippi and Lauderdale 2018). To document students\u0026rsquo; specific experiences in the form of stories, Gillham (2008, p.23) suggested that the primary method of observation involves observing them in their daily lives and then taking field notes on students\u0026rsquo; peer learning activities (Shaffer 2003). Hence, the whole process was recorded by field notes to review compare each observation to make critical analyses (Gillham 2008, p.27). The main areas of interest during each observation revolved around the crucial elements that greatly influence architecture students\u0026apos; peer learning experiences in both the design studio and online environments. These factors include collaborations, personal development, the studio environment, and informal social interactions. The field notes were also taken, followed by those four points.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe length of observation is determined by the timing of the observed activities. For example, architecture students usually experience peer learning lasting several hours, even a whole day, so that the observation will follow the entire learning process. Hence, the observation applied in this research follows a time-sampling schedule (Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias 2008, p. 193) to determine the timing of observation. Combined with the majority of undergraduate architecture students\u0026rsquo; learning habitats, the observations usually happened from those students\u0026rsquo; lunchtime to late afternoons, divided into two to three separate periods, which lasted at least half an hour to several hours. \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eInterview\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo deepen the understanding of students\u0026rsquo; implicit activities during the observation process, some of the students were invited to engage in individual interviews. These interviews aimed to supplement the data collected through observation, since intensive interviewing has long been regarded as the data collection to achieve an in-depth exploration of a particular topic or experience (Charmaz 2006). Those intensive interviews were designed as the form of semi-structured containing open-ended questions to explore those students\u0026rsquo; peer learning experiences which were not observed during the observations. These questions are illustrated below.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eIn-studio peer study outside formal sessions\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDo you typically engage in study with your peers within the design studio, aside from formal desk critiques, scheduled sessions, and tutorials? Could you provide a detailed example of the activities you usually undertake during these learning processes? This might include instances of seeking help from others, participating in group work, or working independently while having peers around.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col start=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eOut-of-studio peer study\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhen you are outside the design studio, at what times and in which locations do you collaborate with your peers outside of formal desk crits, sessions, and tutorials? What are your thoughts on studying with your peers in these off-studio settings?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col start=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eImpact of design studio learning environment\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDoes the learning environment within the design studio enhance these learning processes? What distinctions do you notice between conducting these activities inside and outside the design studio?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col start=\"4\"\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFactors influencing learning place choice\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhat elements influence your decision when choosing a place to learn? Consider aspects like the learning culture, the physical learning environment, living expenses, and commuting time, among others.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col start=\"5\"\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eContribution to architecture learning\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHow do these learning processes contribute to your architectural studies?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col start=\"6\"\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSelf-monitoring of learning progress\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHow do you assess the progress you\u0026apos;ve made following these learning processes?\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs for the categorisation of different interviewees, they were numbered into Student 1, 2, 3\u0026hellip; Table 1 summarises the information of each interviewee.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan id=\"_Toc130896443\"\u003eTable 1 The Basic Information of Interviewees\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIdentity\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAcademic Year\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGender\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1st-Year Chair\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003csup\u003est\u003c/sup\u003e-year\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2nd-Year Chair\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003csup\u003end\u003c/sup\u003e-year\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStudent 1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003csup\u003erd\u003c/sup\u003e-year\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStudent 2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003csup\u003erd\u003c/sup\u003e-year\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStudent 3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003csup\u003erd\u003c/sup\u003e-year\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStudent 4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003csup\u003est\u003c/sup\u003e-year\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStudent 5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003csup\u003end\u003c/sup\u003e-year\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStudent 7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003csup\u003est\u003c/sup\u003e-year\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStudent 8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003csup\u003erd\u003c/sup\u003e-year\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStudent 9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003csup\u003end\u003c/sup\u003e-year\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStudent 10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003csup\u003end\u003c/sup\u003e-year\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStudent 11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003csup\u003end\u003c/sup\u003e-year\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStudent 12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003csup\u003end\u003c/sup\u003e-year\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStudent 13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003csup\u003end\u003c/sup\u003e-year\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStudent 14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003csup\u003erd\u003c/sup\u003e-year\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStudent 15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003csup\u003end\u003c/sup\u003e-year\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStudent 16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003csup\u003end\u003c/sup\u003e-year\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStudent 17\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003csup\u003end\u003c/sup\u003e-year\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStudent 18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003csup\u003erd\u003c/sup\u003e-year\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStudent 19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003csup\u003erd\u003c/sup\u003e-year\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStudent 20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003csup\u003erd\u003c/sup\u003e-year\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eSampling\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe sampling of the questionnaire participants applies the \u0026lsquo;sampling size table\u0026rsquo; (Krejcie \u0026amp; Morgan 1970), as shown in Figure 2, and the estimated sample size of this study is between 226-265 (75-88 participants from each school on average). In addition, Baker (1999, p. 152) indicates that if a population is under 1000, a sampling ratio of 30 percent is good. Therefore, the number of questionnaire participants is 165-255. Connaway and Powell (2010, p. 166) contended that the minimum acceptable response rate is 75 percent (Williamson 2018, p. 364). Accordingly, the estimated number of valid questionnaire responses is between 124 and 199. Between April and June 2021, a total of 166 questionnaires were completed, with 156 being considered valid participants, which indicates that the response rate reaches around 61%-95%.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs for the sample size of observations, cluster sampling (Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias 2008, p. 173) is applied to directly select multiple students as sub-groups (McCombes 2019) according to students\u0026rsquo; learning characteristics and habitus. As the complexity of potential data collected from the observation, Riche and Tanner (1998, p. 27) contended that breaking down observation into smaller elements makes it easier to control and, in some situations, easier to change. For this study, to address the second objective, the specific ways of architecture students\u0026rsquo; informal learning activities between peers are clustered according to their mutual characteristics and categories. Thus, the sampling of observation is clustered into two stages identified by specific activities that happened. Specifically, the first stage is categorised by the location of peer learning activities taking place, such as the design studio and other places; the last stage is the specific peer learning clusters. Figure 3 illustrates the hierarchical relationship between multistage samplings.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRegards the sample size, qualitative research usually is not suitable collecting data from common and big-scale objects (Mohajan 2018); Thus, data saturation, which is the point at which no new information or themes occur in the data from the completion of additional interviews or cases (Guest et al. 2006), can generally be a reference to determine the number of participants.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eData analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eQuantitative Data Analysis\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCoffey and Atkinson (1996, p.168) described the transformation of the collected raw data from students into literal versions that are easily analysable. Specifically, this study applied exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to categorise participants\u0026rsquo; different variables, such as Likert-scale responses in this study, into some specific principal components (Watkins 2018). Since the principal components were found out, they are helpful in designing appropriate questions for the qualitative data collection. The contents below elaborate on the analysis process step by step.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn order to identify the key factors that significantly impact architecture students\u0026apos; peer learning experiences in both the design studio and online environments, the questionnaire considered Kaiser\u0026apos;s (1960) eigenvalue-greater-than-one rule and Cattell\u0026apos;s (1966) scree plot to determine the influential components (Author 2023). Ultimately, ten principal components were identified with eigenvalues above \u0026quot;1\u0026quot; based on the questionnaire data. Furthermore, Figure 4 illustrates that the eigenvalues decline gradually after component 4, indicating a reduction in their impact. Accordingly, four components are counted as the principal components in the survey. As the data analysis method applied in Author (2023), in order to identify which factors are represented by each item, factor loading was used to illustrate the Pearson correlations between the items and the components. Nevertheless, certain variables measure more than one component in the component matrix. Therefore, a varimax rotation was performed to reassign the factor loadings, as depicted in Table 2.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 2 Rotated Component Matrix\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"5\" style=\"width: 383px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eComponents (Factors)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 170px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 170px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTalk to others improves creativity in physical\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.794\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 170px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAsk for help in physical\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.739\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 170px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCollaborate with others to cultivate innovative ideas in the field of physical education.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.726\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 170px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHelp others in physical\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.713\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 170px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eShare learning materials in physical\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.703\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 170px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWorking together to develop our own ideas in the physical realm.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.703\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 170px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eI feel productive when I collaborate with others in person\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.689\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 170px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLearn from others\u0026rsquo; opinions in physical\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.651\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 170px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe casual social elements of the studio carry significance\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.632\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 170px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eYou can use it to determine if I am lagging behind while observing others\u0026apos; progress in the physical realm\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.605\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 170px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWorking in a team can enhance one\u0026apos;s own ideas in a practical manner.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.599\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 170px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe studio environment stimulates students\u0026apos; comparative thinking.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.581\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 170px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe studio environment stimulates students\u0026apos; comparative thinking.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.565\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 170px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIncrease your effort when you witness others\u0026apos; physical work.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.541\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 170px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIncrease your effort when you witness others\u0026apos; physical work.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.512\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 170px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDevelop a sense of confidence when collaborating with others in person.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.498\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 170px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSeek out informal critiques or reviews with others in person.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.443\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 170px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eI feel productive when collaborating with others virtually.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.762\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 170px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFeel assured when collaborating virtually with others.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.758\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 170px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFeel assured when collaborating virtually with others.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.756\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 170px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFeel assured when collaborating virtually with others.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.621\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 170px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTalk to others can improve creativity in virtual\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 170px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eShare learning materials in virtual\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.777\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 170px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAsk for help in virtual\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.743\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 170px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRun informal crits or reviews in virtual\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.720\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 170px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe school has managed to uphold the informal social aspects even in virtual settings.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.633\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 170px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCollaborate with others in virtual\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.478\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 170px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHelp others in virtual\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.475\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 170px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSharing work physically is more convenient\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.747\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 170px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSharing work physically is more convenient\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.717\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 170px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSharing work virtually is more convenient.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.527\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe four main factors mentioned above have been incorporated into four thematic categories that capture architecture students\u0026apos; peer learning experiences in informal settings, as illustrated in Table 3. Afterwards, inferential statistics were employed to investigate whether students\u0026apos; preferences for learning experiences differed significantly between the design studio and remote environment. Specifically, the T-test was used to compare the t-value (t) and p-value (p) of Likert-scales of each paired Likert-type response for the same question (Boone and Boone 2012).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 3 Various Thematic Categories of Data for the Questionnaire\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"567\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThemes\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 140px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSocial Aspects\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStudy Atmosphere\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInterindividual Supports\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCollaboration\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSpecific indication\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 140px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIn the studio, students interact through casual conversations and being in the presence of others while they work on their own tasks.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStudents\u0026rsquo; learning activities rely on the study atmosphere within the studio environment, including the things happen within it, and physical and social settings within it\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThis environment allows for the sharing of design thinking，learning materials，process work，and design products among students.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStudents collaborate with one another for tasks such as group projects.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eQualitative Data Analysis\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBurke (2015) indicated that the shifts in studio culture result from the implementation of the Bologna model and its three-plus-two-years (bachelor\u0026rsquo;s degree plus master\u0026rsquo;s degree) education pattern. Welsh School of Architecture in Cardiff University, as one of the top five architecture schools in the UK, applied this educational pattern in representative. Specifically, according to the introduction of this school\u0026rsquo;s official website, Architecture (BSc/MArch) of Welsh School of Architecture is a five-year architecture degree course, which consists of a three-year Part 1 Bachelor of Science, and a two-year Part 2 Master of Architecture with one year in architectural practice and a final year based in the school. Students in each academic year can spend most of their time in their particular design studio. Students are educated by traditional one-to-one tutorials, with supports of lectures, seminars, group assignments and online learning materials. To ensure the course above, the school provides students with a range of working spaces, workshops and computer-aided design facilities to support students\u0026rsquo; learning. Accordingly, having a good reputation in architectural education, studio-based pedagogy with multiple supports, and\u0026nbsp;various\u0026nbsp;study spaces within the school building, the Welsh School of Architecture is representative to be selected as the example in this thesis.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSpecifically, drawing on the field notes from observations and the transcripts obtained from interviews, students\u0026apos;\u0026nbsp;informal\u0026nbsp;learning activities\u0026nbsp;between peers outside\u0026nbsp;formal sessions, tutorials, and desk crits were categorized into specific themes. When it comes to transforming the observational notes into valuable data, this study utilizes the concept of \u0026apos;\u0026apos;thick description\u0026apos;\u0026apos; (Geertz, 1973). More precisely, students\u0026apos; learning activities and experiences were organized according to different types of phenomena and then coded with distinct symbols. These codes could be searched using keywords and identified based on topics, time, or participants (Phillippi \u0026amp; Lauderdale, 2018). For instance, various learning venues were grouped as the first cluster, denoted as 1, 2, etc. Different learning activities were clustered at the second level, indicated by 1.1, 2.1, 3.1, etc. The specific structure of the thick description is presented in Table 4, as shown below:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan id=\"_Toc123414936\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;Table\u0026nbsp;\u003c/span\u003e4\u0026nbsp;The Structure of Observation Field Notes\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"558\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003csup\u003est\u003c/sup\u003e cluster\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 438px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003csup\u003end\u003c/sup\u003e cluster\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCode\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"4\" style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eYear Design Studio / Hybrid studio\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 438px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHelp each other or being helped, compare work, working together (mutual engagement)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.1 / 2.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 438px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBe motivated by presenting at the studio, for example, to work harder as part of a community (a joint enterprise)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.2 / 2.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 438px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWandering and chatting with others within the design studio, just like joining a socialising activity within a community centre (a shared repertoire)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.3 / 2.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 438px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFeel more engaged with other members who learn within the design studio (mutual engagement)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.4 / 2.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo understand the structure of observation field notes in more detail, there are some examples indicating the specific peer learning experiences in each code: (1) Some students do their own business in the form of a group with 2-3 members within their studio, and this phenomenon can be symbolised in \u0026lsquo;1.3\u0026rsquo;; (2) Many students sometimes communicate with peer learning members within the tutorial space, and this can be coded as \u0026lsquo;2.1\u0026rsquo;; (3) Some students ask for help to seniors privately, and this can also be symbolised as \u0026lsquo;2.1\u0026rsquo;.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSince the main categories of participants\u0026rsquo; peer learning experiences were recognised and summarised, this paper applied thematic analysis to analyse qualitative data (Jamieson 2017). To validate the themes summarised from qualitative data, such themes were compared with those interpreted from the questionnaire responses. In addition, such themes can be aligned with three attributes of communities of practice proposed by Lave and Wenger (1991), which are mutual engagement, a joint enterprise, and a shared repertoire. Mutual engagement, based on Wenger\u0026rsquo;s (1998) statement, refers to the relationships that bind community members as a unity. A joint enterprise, according to Wenger\u0026rsquo;s (1998) theory, results from a collective negotiation process that reflects the full complexity of mutual engagement. Wenger (1998) articulated that a shared repertoire refers to communal resources that community members have developed over time.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAccordingly, the themes of such peer learning experiences collected from\u0026nbsp;qualitative methods\u0026nbsp;were coded into \u0026ldquo;Face-to-Face and Distance Contacts\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;(interpreted from \u0026ldquo;Collaboration\u0026rdquo;), \u0026ldquo;Studio Atmosphere and Its Alternatives\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;(interpreted from \u0026ldquo;Studio Atmosphere\u0026rdquo;), \u0026ldquo;Peer-to-Peer Bonds\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;(interpreted from \u0026ldquo;Interindividual Supports\u0026rdquo;), and \u0026ldquo;The Form of a Group and/or a Community\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;(interpreted from \u0026ldquo;Social Aspects\u0026rdquo;)\u0026nbsp;allocated by the genres of students\u0026rsquo; peer learning activities.\u0026nbsp;Specifically, \u0026ldquo;Face-to-face and distance contacts\u0026rdquo; is sourced from a shared repertoire of communities of practice; \u0026ldquo;Studio atmosphere and its alternatives\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;The form of a group and/or a community\u0026rdquo; is sourced from a joint enterprise of communities of practice; \u0026ldquo;Peer-to-peer bonds\u0026rdquo; is sourced from mutual engagement of communities of practice. Table 5 illustrates the structure of the themes. Thus, in the next section, the titles of the following four sub-sections are summarised into such four themes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp id=\"_Toc123414935\"\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;5 Structure of the Themes\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"567\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThemes\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFace-to-face and distance contacts\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 122px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStudio atmosphere and its alternatives\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 142px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePeer-to-peer bonds\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe form of a group and/or a community\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSpecific indication\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStudents\u0026rsquo; interactions between peers by face-to-face and distance contact methods.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 122px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRegarding the design studio, consider both the physical layout and furnishings, as well as the various interactions and events that occur among the students within its confines.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 142px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWhen it comes to the interactions that take place among students, they are predominantly founded on elements such as students\u0026apos; shared interests, similar traits, mutual concerns, common values, and collective aims.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe learning community is organised by all students in the same academic year; A small learning group consist of 2-4 individuals.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eEthical Aspects\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll the questions that need to be asked to follow the ethics policy for human research of Cardiff University applicable when human participants are involved.\u0026nbsp;The ethical approval forms (with the reference number 2223), which were approved by The Welsh School of Architecture\u0026rsquo;s Research Ethics Committee on 11\u003csup\u003eth\u003c/sup\u003e May 2022, are attached in the Cover Letter. This committee belongs to one of School Research Ethics Committees (SRECs) under the ethical review model of Cardiff University. Participants in all data collection exercises can withdraw from the research at anytime. Before implementing interviews and observations, the documents containing the requirements of the study, including consentient information, are informed to volunteered students.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eInformed Consent\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBefore implementing questionnaires, observations, interviews, the documents containing the requirements of the study, including consent information, are informed to volunteered students. By explaining the research objectives and being ethically appropriate, the participants fully understand their roles and responsibilities for the study. Besides, to implement observation, the investigator needs to acquire the provision of participants to observe and record within physical design studios and get approval for recording students\u0026apos; learning beyond formal timetable activities. The data collection process can be conducted only if the consent is approved.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe consent forms were sent to volunteered students at two separate dates. Specifically, students from three aimed architectural institutions received content forms on 29\u003csup\u003eth\u003c/sup\u003e March 2022 before conducting questionnaires. Furthermore, another set of content forms were sent to students at Cardiff University on 18\u003csup\u003eth\u003c/sup\u003e April 2022 to conduct observations and interviews. Since the approval process was longer than what I expected, I had to collect data before the ethical approval form was granted. Even though, students fully agreed to attend the data collection process, since they understood the research objectives and their personal information would not be collected.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis section presents results from both phases of this study. Specifically, the first sub-section illustrates results from quantitative data, which addressed the first objective. The following four sub-sections indicate four thematic characteristics of architecture students\u0026rsquo; informal learning activities between peers, elaborating on results from qualitative data, which addressed the second objective.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003ePrincipal Factors of Architecture Students\u0026rsquo; Peer Learning in Different Environments\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThrough T-test from questionnaire results (as shown in Table 6), the differences in preference between\u0026nbsp;collaboration, including\u0026nbsp;running informal crits and reviews, collaboration, sharing materials, and allocating tasks when in groups within the design studio and remotely are all significant (p\u0026lt;0.05). The results indicated that\u0026nbsp;the contact methods have significant impacts on architecture students\u0026rsquo; peer learning.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 6 Paired Simple Test of Collaboration\u0026nbsp;between Students\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"558\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePairs\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSD\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003et\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003edf\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSig. (2-tailed)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd height=\"35\" style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd height=\"35\" style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRun informal crits and reviews in physical and virtual\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.82692\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.33520\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.735\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e155\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFeel more productive when working with others in physical and virtual\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.62179\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.30182\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.966\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e155\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFeel more confident when working with others in physical and virtual\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.62179\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.10916\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.002\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e155\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAllocate different tasks when working in groups in physical and virtual\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.48077\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.98026\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.126\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e155\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIt is easier to share work in physical and virtual\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.50000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.14441\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.457\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e155\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCollaborate with others when doing design work in physical and virtual\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.77564\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.29303\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.492\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e155\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCollaboratively work to develop own ideas in physical and virtual\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.51282\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.04411\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.135\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e155\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs shown in Table 7, the preference between looking at others\u0026rsquo; work to check the process, to work harder, to make sure not to struggle alone, and to debate with others within the design studio and remotely shows significant (p\u0026lt;0.05). Therefore, the design studio atmosphere creates a complex context where students experience conflicting emotions, as it both inspires personal goals and ambitions while also subjecting them to the pressure of comparing their work with others. In contrast to the atmosphere within the design studio, the virtual learning environment lacks the presence of anyone pushing, allowing students to relieve the pressure that the studio atmosphere creates. This, in turn, fosters a sense of independence when it comes to their work. The preference for individual learning in the design studio and remotely does not show a significant difference (p = 0.115 \u0026gt; 0.05), indicating that the working environment does not have a significant impact on students\u0026apos; individual learning.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 7 Paired Sample Test of\u0026nbsp;Study Atmosphere\u0026nbsp;in Physical and Virtual Contexts\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"558\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 236px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePairs\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStd. Deviation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003et\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003edf\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSig. (2-tailed)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd height=\"35\" style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd height=\"35\" style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 236px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLook at others to check if they are behind in physical and virtual\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.65385\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.11096\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.351\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e155\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 236px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSee others to work harder in physical and virtual\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.62821\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.16518\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.734\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e155\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 236px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCheck if I am the only one struggling in physical and virtual\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.39103\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.18362\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.126\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e155\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 236px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDebate with fellows in physical and virtual\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.17308\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.88108\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.453\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e155\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.015\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 236px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePrefer to learn individually in physical and virtual\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.11538\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.90847\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-1.586\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e155\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.115\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs shown in Table 8, students\u0026rsquo; various peer-to-peer relationships show significant differences (p\u0026lt;0.05) within conventional design studios and remotely.\u0026nbsp;The results indicated that architecture students\u0026rsquo; interindividual relationships have significant impacts on students\u0026rsquo; peer learning.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 8 Paired Simple Test between Personal Acquisition from Others\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"558\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 246px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePairs\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStd. Deviation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003et\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003edf\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSig. (2-tailed)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd height=\"35\" style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd height=\"35\" style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 246px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAsk for help in physical and virtual\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.80769\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.28573\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.846\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e155\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 246px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eShare Learning materials in physical and virtual\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.87821\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.20933\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.070\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e155\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 246px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHelp others in physical and virtual\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.62179\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.09157\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.115\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e155\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 246px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePeer learning can improve creativity in physical and virtual\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.53205\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.10961\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.989\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e155\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 246px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eComparing work can develop own ideas in physical and virtual\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.51923\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.08045\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.002\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e155\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 246px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePeer learning to develop new ideas in physical and virtual\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.57051\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.09020\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.536\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e155\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 246px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLearn from others\u0026rsquo; opinions in physical and virtual\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.76282\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.25010\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.622\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e155\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAccording to Table 9, students consider informal social aspects, such as casual conversations with fellow students, to be crucial for their learning experience in traditional design studios. However, the school did not make sufficient efforts to preserve these aspects when students had to switch to remote learning during the pandemic. Thus, some students innovated some settings within their homes or other places to construct alternative studio environments.\u0026nbsp;The result indicated that informal activities have significant impacts on architecture students\u0026rsquo; peer learning.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 9 Paired Sample Test between Informal\u0026nbsp;Social\u0026nbsp;Aspects within the Conventional Studio and Online Environment\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"558\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 255px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePairs\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStd. Deviation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003et\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 28px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003edf\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSig. (2-tailed)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd height=\"35\" style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd height=\"35\" style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 255px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInformal social aspects are important in the studio atmosphere, and the school has tried its best to maintain it in virtual ways\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.28846\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.62643\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.895\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 28px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e155\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn summary, almost all statistics results show significant differences of \u0026ldquo;collaboration\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;study atmosphere\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;interindividual supports\u0026rdquo;, and \u0026ldquo;social aspects\u0026rdquo; between within conventional design studio and online environments. Even though, \u0026ldquo;doing individual learning\u0026rdquo; does not show significant difference between within physical and online environments. The following four sub-sections shows the specific ways that such factors affect architecture students\u0026rsquo; informal learning activities between peers within physical and online environments.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eThe Specific Ways of Architecture Students\u0026rsquo; Informal Learning Activities between Peers\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eFace-to-Face and Distance Contacts\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIt was found from interviews that face-to-face and distance contacts determine to what extent that \u0026ldquo;collaboration\u0026rdquo; generate impacts to such learning experiences. Specifically, many\u0026nbsp;architecture students\u0026rsquo; learning experiences rely on the cooperation between fellows\u0026nbsp;when they are engaged in extra-curricular\u0026nbsp;activities, especially when they face tough issues requiring others\u0026rsquo; help. For example:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStudent 1: \u0026ldquo;We three are now often learning within our studio together, and sometimes we also invite some other fellows to join us.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStudent 2: \u0026ldquo;Yeah, sometimes we (Student 2 and Student 3) come earlier and study within hybrid studio, because we enjoy the quiet vibe without others\u0026rsquo; disturbance.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStudent 3: \u0026ldquo;Our unit started design process a little bit late, so I need to catch up the normal process\u0026hellip; I need to ask for help from my fellows, and we three constitute a specific \u0026lsquo;helping group\u0026rsquo;.\u0026quot; \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlternatively, different from students who prefer learning within the environment of design studios, there is still a great portion of students who often learn in their properties outside formal sessions unless others invite them to study together, and they would only ask for help via communicating questions on WeChat or What\u0026rsquo;s App and search architectural articles or projects on Pinterest, ArchDaily, Instagram, and Youtube channels. For example:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStudent 4: \u0026ldquo;I have nearly no architecture knowledge and experience, so I feel embarrassed to express my \u0026lsquo;na\u0026iuml;ve ideas\u0026rsquo; to the public or with my fellows around\u0026hellip;Since the design projects are more conceptual in the first year, and we mostly have no previous experiences of architecture learning, most of we are still exploring the learning measures which suitable for ourselves.\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlthough social media or some specific communicational applications (i.e. Miro, Teams and Zoom) could support and innovate normal interactions between architecture students\u0026nbsp;at extra-curricular\u0026nbsp;activities, those students still highly rely on face-to-face contacts to achieve the activities which can only be done within the physical spaces. Personal acquisition from others\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAnother impact of distance contact on architectural learning is that students learn from others. Since architecture students need to figure out complicated design tasks, including sites, regulations, materials, constructions, structures, economic benefits, etc., those individuals require multiple resources and comprehension, so they ought to rely more on peer learning, even though some are based on virtual approaches. However, just like the statement of the 1\u003csup\u003est\u003c/sup\u003e-Year Chair:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;The peer learning atmosphere of architecture students should be cultivated within the design studio, but the pandemic and rules sourced from it prevent those students from physical contact for a whole year.\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNonetheless, some students still got used to learning individually and via social media. For instance:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStudent 4: \u0026ldquo;We mostly rely on YouTube channels to learn the key knowledge we need, rather than asking for help from peers even though we know that someone is pretty good at some points.\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStudent 5: \u0026ldquo;As you can see, we (architecture students) basically make and store physical models within the design studio, and others can walk close to observe the model-making techniques and model details\u0026hellip;while it was hard to do when we were staring on our own laptop screens.\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAfter all, students\u0026rsquo; accounts above illustrate a difference between students\u0026rsquo; acquisition within the physical design studio and the virtual environment. Comparatively, most students are more willing to ask for help and help others via face-to-face measures, even though others also accept communicating by virtual calls or meetings.\u0026nbsp;In other words, students\u0026rsquo; initiatives of engaging in face-to-face and distance contacts have become a shared repertoire to form their communities of practice.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3 id=\"_Toc105689027\"\u003eStudio Atmosphere and Its Alternatives\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIt was found from the investigation that studio environment and its alternatives determine to what extent that \u0026ldquo;study atmosphere\u0026rdquo; generate impacts to such learning experiences. Specifically, to explore study atmosphere in detail, there was an observation of social learning experience, indicating that the occupation rate of the studio was 30%-40% in all studios, as shown in Field Notes 1.1-1, 13.00-15.00, 28\u003csup\u003eth\u003c/sup\u003e April 2022:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe common phenomenon is that most students tend to sit closely surrounded by a big table, and these \u0026lsquo;learning tables\u0026rsquo; were separated within the studio, which means that there were different learning groups. Normally, each learning group consisted of 2-8 students while they were doing their own business rather than doing collaborative tasks. Even though some group members were chatting, others were still focused on their own stuff. Apart from the obvious learning group organised by some students spontaneously, a few others sat at the corner of the studio doing his/her own work, just 3-4 in total in each studio.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAnother phenomenon is that the learning groups usually consist of the same members. Specifically, Field Notes 1.1-3, 14.30-16.00, 15\u003csup\u003eth\u003c/sup\u003e-18\u003csup\u003eth\u003c/sup\u003e May 2022:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThere were always three students sitting together in the middle of the 3\u003csup\u003erd\u003c/sup\u003e-year studio for several hours in the afternoons, enabling a fixed peer learning group; In the meantime, there was another fixed learning group, consisting of 2-3 students, tending to organise peer learning within the hybrid studio.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo explain those phenomena above, students were taken interviewed, and there was often \u0026ldquo;invisible pushing\u0026rdquo; detected among architecture students. Students call those \u0026ldquo;pushing\u0026rdquo; as \u0026ldquo;sweating\u0026rdquo; in the initiative, just like the individuals sweat a lot in the gym. In general, many students accept and immerse themselves in the\u0026nbsp;\u0026ldquo;sweating\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;atmosphere. It is even noticeable that without \u0026ldquo;sweating\u0026rdquo; makes some students nervous because they have no idea what others\u0026rsquo; design progress. Thus, architecture students who prefer studying within the design studio are highly likely to look around to check or ask about others\u0026rsquo; work progress. For example:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStudent 8: \u0026ldquo;Since I presented the design outcome after each tutorial and crit, my fellows always say that I am so \u0026lsquo;sweating\u0026rsquo;, but they are the true persons who \u0026lsquo;sweating\u0026rsquo; a lot. I really like this atmosphere, which can push me to innovate more new ideas, and they can also learn from mine.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStudent 9: \u0026ldquo;I think that the sense of \u0026ldquo;sweating\u0026rdquo; is a good impetus for all of us. I feel that when I see others under pressure, it motivates me to catch up with them.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHowever, not every student regards \u0026ldquo;sweating\u0026rdquo; as a positive support to their own learning. By contrast, some students even receive bad effects from it. For instance:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStudent 11: \u0026ldquo;The \u0026lsquo;sweating\u0026rsquo; atmosphere makes me tension a lot, so I hardly study within our design studio. I only went there to make physical models and my friends sometimes asked me for suggestions to their design projects.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStudent 1: \u0026ldquo;He (Student 3) is \u0026ldquo;sweating\u0026rdquo; too much\u0026hellip;he expressed negative tempers when he was \u0026lsquo;sweating\u0026rsquo;, and that emotion somehow influenced us in the meanwhile\u0026hellip;That gave us too many pressures.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp id=\"_Toc123658960\"\u003eCompared with the \u0026ldquo;sweating\u0026rdquo; within the conventional design studio environment, it was found that the virtual learning environment can decrease the tension from individuals who fear \u0026ldquo;sweating\u0026rdquo;. For example:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStudent 12: \u0026ldquo;It is really nice to walk around to see others\u0026rsquo; working progress within the design studio. I am keen on working within a social place, and our studio provides me with that place where friends are around, and we can share with each other about what happened recently. It\u0026rsquo;s helpful to distract me from pressure.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStudent 10: \u0026ldquo;We study within the design studio from Monday to Friday and from day till night. It\u0026rsquo;s a nice place to leave our stuff here, our physical models on the table and draft drawing in the lockers there. The surrounding environment within the studio is important to motivate us to study hard.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlternatively, many students articulated that they prefer studying in other spaces (such as tutorial space within the school building, their own rooms, and public learning spaces within student accommodation) if it is not necessary to study at the studio. Except for \u0026ldquo;sweating\u0026rdquo;, there are other reasons for those students\u0026rsquo; choices, such as the \u0026ldquo;messy\u0026rdquo; environment within the design studio. Specifically, as shown in Figure\u0026nbsp;5, it is one typical design studio in Bute Building. It is full of group models, drawings, and pin-ups, which indicate the group work and shared learning materials made here then. Besides, some students\u0026rsquo; learning experiences are disturbed by voices and even noises from other students within such an environment. For example:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStudent 14: \u0026ldquo;I come to the studio depending on if it is close to the deadline of submitting the final work\u0026hellip;if it is close to the deadline, I usually learn within the studio; if not, I still prefer learning within my own home, due to the noisy environment in the studio.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStudent 15: \u0026ldquo;I really like learning within the tidy environment, so I don\u0026rsquo;t like the working environment within the design studio. There are always people talking and the messy environment distract me from my work a lot\u0026hellip; I prefer to study in my own home where is quiet and there is a long table to make sure my own work. Sometimes, I go to the building of Centre for Student Life to study, because it\u0026rsquo;s quiet as well.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStudent 16: \u0026ldquo;I\u0026apos;m easily distracted when talking to the people around me, and I think it wastes my time that could be spent on my own work\u0026hellip; I usually study in my own room to avoid the distractive stuff around me. When my flatmate wants to learn with me together, we sometimes go to the public space in our accommodation, because there are some specific spaces for small group learning.\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStudent 19: \u0026ldquo;The messy environment has negative effect on my learning outside formal sessions, so I usually study within the hybrid studio where is quiet, clear, and tidy, and it is more easily for me to engage in the environment of hybrid studio.\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition, the commuting between their accommodation to the school is also a big matter to students\u0026rsquo; choice of learning places because it wastes students\u0026rsquo; precious time doing design projects. For instance:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStudent 17: \u0026ldquo;It highly depends on the weather if I travel from my accommodation to the school\u0026hellip;Fortunately, we have options to attend tutorial online or onsite, and I usually choose to do it online when I don\u0026rsquo;t want to go to school\u0026hellip;I need to take more time on commuting if it rains.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStudent 18: \u0026ldquo;I am waiting for my fellow to study with me (within the hybrid studio). I live close to school, so I came earlier. She lives a little bit far away from school, so it takes some time to wait for her\u0026hellip;we both agree to study here today.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn summary, except for the ones who typically do individual learning in their own home, wherever the studios in the school building or the self-organised studio in students\u0026rsquo; accommodation, the majority of architecture students usually keep a studio culture just like when they study within the studio atmosphere. For example:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2\u003csup\u003end\u003c/sup\u003e-Year Chair: \u0026ldquo;There are around ten architecture students living in the same house, mostly 2nd- and 3rd-year. They normally learn with each other within the living room, organising an environment just like a design studio.\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStudent 19: \u0026ldquo;\u0026hellip;Having a well-designed work area in my room, with two separate desks - one for drawing and model-making, and another for the computer - has been beneficial when collaborating with my flatmates for group projects during the initial smaller modules in my third year. I believe that offering additional studio spaces easily accessible would greatly enhance productivity.\u0026rdquo;.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAccordingly, architecture students generally have the tendency to engage in peer learning within the studio atmosphere wherever within their physical design studio or other non-timetabled learning spaces. This phenomenon has become a joint enterprise of their communities of practice.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3 id=\"_Toc123658963\"\u003ePeer-to-Peer Bonds\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIt was found from the investigation that peer-to-peer bonds determine to what extent that \u0026ldquo;interindividual supports\u0026rdquo; generate impacts to such learning experiences. Specifically, there are two types of group learning among architecture students: the first one is learning in a shared place where multiple students are working, but they are all doing their own stuff; The other one is learning in a small group, usually organised by 2-4 people, but they are doing their own business as well, and those group members are usually settled rather than randomly organised. For example, Field notes 1.1-5, 12.30-13.30 12\u003csup\u003eth\u003c/sup\u003e May 2022:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTwo students were doing informal crits, including introducing the project, getting familiar with each page of the portfolio, learning from others\u0026apos; advice and suggestions, and getting extra knowledge of architects and design projects to review and revise their own work. Because the \u0026apos;critiques\u0026apos; were from familiars, the atmosphere of informal crits could have been more relaxed. There was no pressure of getting critiques and low scores, so the vibe was relaxed and hilarious. The process lasts just 10-20 minutes. However, the disadvantage was that the advice and suggestions were not critical, so they might need to be more accurate.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe scene above usually happens between different individuals, and some students claimed that this way could literally inspire their design thinking further to develop their project. Another example indicates the stable bond connecting students in small groups (as shown in Figure 6). Field notes 2.1-3, 15.00-16.00 11\u003csup\u003eth\u003c/sup\u003e May 2022:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTwo students (Student 1 and Student 2) were initially sitting on their own seats within a learning unit in the hybrid studio. Several minutes later, one student asked for help from another to install an analysing software on his laptop. The \u0026lsquo;tutorial\u0026rsquo; process lasted more than half an hour because the software made false all the time, so they tried again and again several times. After the whole process, they said that they two are good friends, by the way, and they always learn together, sometime in their Year 3 design studio, but usually in the hybrid studio instead. That is the reason that they can help each other the very patience.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHowever, not every interindividual bond is based on a \u0026lsquo;close friend\u0026rsquo; mode. Some good relationships between students are generated by organised activities outside course time. For example:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStudent 20: \u0026ldquo;I believe that our relationships are connected with unit activities\u0026hellip; The unit members (of the unit one) are drawing together these days, and they are really in good relationships after these days\u0026rsquo; work.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStudent 13: \u0026ldquo;As the president of Architecture Association in the school, I organised some activities such as dinner parties and tours for our students. Those activities literally help constitute the bonds between most individuals.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThose arguments reveal the unreplaceable physical peer-to-peer relationships regarding maintaining architectural peer learning, which implies that the virtual environment for keeping efficient architecture learning is still immature. As specialists in architecture pedagogy, such as self-organised tutorials, students require relative training to catch up the intuition and tacit knowledge. In contrast, no module or material for such training in virtual environments has yet been implemented. In a word, these peer-to-peer bonds between architecture students are categorised as their mutual engagement of communities of practice.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eThe Form of A Community and/or A Group\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIt was found from the investigation that the form of a community and/or a group determines to what extent that \u0026ldquo;social aspects\u0026rdquo; generate impacts to such learning experiences. Specifically, during observations, some students generate learning communities consisting of a large number of individuals. For example, as shown in Field notes 1.4-3, 13.00-15.00, 10\u003csup\u003eth\u003c/sup\u003e May 2022:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWithin the design studio, there were some big group models made by students together, and everyone in the same group could use them. In addition to that, the community fosters a sense of indirect teamwork for students. Although they may be working on different tasks, they still come together as a collective. For instance, students work individually on their own computers, but being surrounded by peers doing similar things reminds them that they are not alone in their challenges. Moreover, within the studio setting, students can seek technical assistance from others, spontaneously and promptly, and receive feedback on their work. Furthermore, the face-to-face interactions among classmates can create nostalgic experiences that may prove beneficial for future projects or ventures.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAnyway, it is very frequent for architecture students to create a \u0026ldquo;work zone\u0026rdquo;. However, only if there are opportunities for students to cultivate their social relationships, they are willing to spontaneously organise a stable learning group and even a learning community with multiple individuals. By contrast, if there are no opportunities for students to establish bonds with each other, they also may be reluctant to organise the learning communities on a broader scale than their specific learning group.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn contrast to the learning community that includes numerous individuals, other learning groups are formed by a small group of students who typically have close relationships (usually 2-4), and they tend to exist for an extended period, sometimes for the entire semester. For example, as shown in Field notes 1.4-2, 13.30-14.00, 4\u003csup\u003eth\u003c/sup\u003e May 2022:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFive students are sitting around a long table. They were doing their own business, and sometimes two of them communicated with each other to talk about their design projects. One of those students was interviewed during the observation, and he indicated that their studio atmosphere was the best in three academic years Many students usually learn within the studio whenever.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eExcept for students\u0026rsquo; initiatives, some external factors also impact the organisation of learning communities and groups. Specifically, the living- and learning-support facilities nearby design studios, such as kitchen, benches, media lab, plotter room, printer room, library, etc. For example, Field Notes 1.3-2, 13.00-13.45, 21\u003csup\u003est\u003c/sup\u003e May 2022:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAbout six students came out from the 2\u003csup\u003end\u003c/sup\u003e-year design studio, two of them pointing to the kitchen just opposite the studio, and the other four went downstairs to catch up on their lunch at the vending machine on the ground floor or outside. About half an hour later, some of them sit on the benches in the corridor to have lunch and chat simultaneously.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo have an entire scene of architecture students\u0026rsquo; learning experiences, besides observations of their activities beyond their course time, some of them were interviewed as well to supplement some details of their \u0026lsquo;daily routines\u0026rsquo; that happened within the building. For example:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStudent 13: \u0026ldquo;\u0026hellip;some of them sitting at these benches to have lunch or snacks, and they chatted for a little while before going back to the studio\u0026hellip;while others spent more time within the kitchen\u0026hellip;I normally come here after lunch, but I usually use the computer within the IT room beside our studio, to upload design work so that I can print it in the plotter room just opposite to the IT room.\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThus, those students are more convenient to have access to such facilities to maintain their basic living and learning needs beyond their learning time. However, remote learning causes the loss of daily routine in some extent. For instance:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStudent 7: \u0026ldquo;in the past, we were able to see others\u0026apos; work and share various resources, including drawings, advice, and ideas. However, this interaction was limited to conversations conducted through screens due to distance.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAfter all, besides students\u0026rsquo; initiatives, the form of students\u0026rsquo; learning groups and/or learning community is easy to be influenced by some outside factors as well. However, those factors are not affecting individuals equally. In contrast, they may lead to opposite attitudes, especially the messy environment within the design studio. Some students cannot bear it at all, but others think that it inspires their design thinking. Accordingly, whatever a community or a group, they both belong to a joint enterprise of communities of practice, which are constituted by architecture students\u0026rsquo; informal learning activities between peers.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe\u0026nbsp;discussion between previous studies and\u0026nbsp;two\u0026nbsp;parts of this study\u0026nbsp;is\u0026nbsp;elaborated on in the following paragraphs:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(1) As the statement in many other studies, design learning is tightly guided by the cycle of interactive and\u0026nbsp;continuous\u0026nbsp;feedback (Fleischmann 2019),\u0026nbsp;as well as\u0026nbsp;\u0026lsquo;studio culture\u0026rsquo; (Koch et al. 2002).\u0026nbsp;Research has identified\u0026nbsp;that social interactions, active learning, and social engagement (Fleischmann 2019, Lee 2006)\u0026nbsp;assume a crucial\u0026nbsp;role in the learning process (Kvan 2001, Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick 2006).\u0026nbsp;Furthermore, online learning platforms can promote these learning activities (Vosinakis and Koutsabasis 2013;\u0026nbsp;Ceylan 2021; Yu et al. 2022).\u0026nbsp;The findings of this study in the paper validate these theories and also present additional\u0026nbsp;key factors that have significant different between architecture students\u0026rsquo; peer learning within physical and online environments, including\u0026nbsp;collaboration, individual acquisition of knowledge, the studio environment, and informal social aspects.\u0026nbsp;Cuff (1991) acknowledges that the majority of architecture students have a deficiency in communication and interpersonal skills. Therefore, in order to guarantee that architecture students\u0026apos; peer learning experiences in the virtual environment are just as beneficial as those in the studio environment, it is necessary to strengthen the\u0026nbsp;collaborations,\u0026nbsp;personal acquisition, and informal social aspects\u0026nbsp;between\u0026nbsp;peers\u0026nbsp;and maintain a studio atmosphere.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(2) Most previous studies primarily examine how design studio tutors facilitate peer learning experiences within the structured course setting (e.g. Marshalsey and Sclater 2020, Fleischmann 2019, Attoe, and Mugerauer 1991, Park 2020, Alnusairat, D. A. and Maani, A. Al-Jokhadar 2021, Vosinakis, Koutsabasis 2013, Uluoglu 2000, Kvan 2001, Pektaş 2015, Morton 2020). However, this study explores the main themes and characteristics of architecture students\u0026apos; informal learning between peers. Specifically, participation in the studio environment did not follow a discrete peer learning mode, and every student may actively engage in an environment that may not be practical for others (Morton 2020). For example, this paper finds that the peer learning mode constituted by architecture students\u0026rsquo; informal learning between peers is not a certain concept. Indeed, it is constituted by face-to-face contact, affected by peer-to-peer bonds, and synthesising the studio environment and the form of a community.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe two research questions, which are \u0026ldquo;to pinpoint the key factors that have a significant impact on architecture students\u0026apos; experiences of peer learning in both the design studio and online settings\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;to investigate the specific ways in which architecture students engage in informal learning activities between peers\u0026rdquo;, were explored the specific answer.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo address the first research question, the quantitative part of this study identifies the key factors that significantly influence these experiences. It highlights the importance of both physical and online environments in architecture education. This study successfully addresses the gaps in knowledge regarding the effectiveness of peer learning when there is no pre-arranged planning of pedagogical modules. In conclusion, to foster peer learning among students, the virtual environment should explore various alternative functions and measures to support, enhance, and potentially revolutionize the process.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo answer the second research question,\u0026nbsp;the qualitative part of\u0026nbsp;this paper\u0026nbsp;identified key characteristics of\u0026nbsp;architecture students\u0026rsquo;\u0026nbsp;informal learning between peers:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eStudents\u0026rsquo; interactions\u0026nbsp;between peers\u0026nbsp;are various, and\u0026nbsp;they\u0026nbsp;mostly rely on specific physical environments, which include the design studio and tutorial spaces.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRegarding the design studio, both the interactions among students within it and the learning communities organized by students are considered integral parts of the studio environment for architecture students.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAs for the\u0026nbsp;interactions that occur\u0026nbsp;between students, they are mostly based on students\u0026rsquo;\u0026nbsp;mutual characteristics.\u0026nbsp;These shared characteristics\u0026nbsp;lead architecture students\u0026nbsp;to form\u0026nbsp;their peer-to-peer bonds.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAll the stuff is illustrated as a group and/or a community for architecture students. Specifically, the community is normally organised by many students in the same academic year, and 2-5 individuals constitute the group.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eImplications\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis paper\u0026nbsp;provides\u0026nbsp;references to the research field with suggestions to optimise the studio environment. For instance, the design of the studio environment ought to facilitate both face-to-face and remote interactions among students. This implies that there should be diverse types of spaces that can accommodate physical interactions as well as blended learning activities. Moreover, within the design studio, it should offer multiple spatial configurations. These configurations would enable students to form small-scale learning groups and large-scale learning communities, thereby creating more opportunities for the formation of peer-to-peer bonds among them.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eLimitation and Further Research\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll study findings in this paper are sourced from undergraduate architecture students, so future work should extend the research field to architectural students at other academic levels. In addition, the investigation period was set at the point when the \u0026ldquo;work from home\u0026rdquo; policy had just ended, so the side effects brought by learning in isolation and distance still exist, which may cause the study result not to be precise. Future studies can further do a similar investigation later, to check if those side effects fade in the post-pandemic era.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eDeclaration of Conflicting Interests\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eFunding Declaration\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThere is no funding for this study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eData Availability Statement\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJierui Wang contributed to writing the main manuscript, methodology, data collection, data analysis, and paper reviewing.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAchten H., Koszewski K., Martens B. (2011). \u003cem\u003eWhat happened after the \u0026ldquo;Hype\u0026rdquo; on Virtual Design Studios?: Some Considerations for a Roundtable Discussion\u003c/em\u003e. RESPECTING FRAGILE PLACES 29th eCAADe Conference Proceedings. University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Architecture (Slovenia) 21-24 September 2011.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAlnusairat S. Maani D. A. Al-Jokhadar A. (2021). Architecture students\u0026rsquo; satisfaction with and perceptions of online design studios during COVID-19 lockdown: the case of Jordan universities, International Journal of Architectural Research. 15 (1) 219-236.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAnklam P. (2009). Ten years of NetWork. \u003cem\u003eThe Learning Organization\u003c/em\u003e 16(6), pp. 415-426.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAttoe W., Mugerauer R. (1991). Excellent Studio Teaching in Architecture, \u003cem\u003eStudies in Higher Education\u003c/em\u003e. 16 (1) 41-50.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBaker T. L. 3rd ed. (1999). \u003cem\u003eDoing social research\u003c/em\u003e. New York; London: McGraw-Hill.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBelluigi D. Z. (2016). Construction of roles in studio teaching and learning. \u003cem\u003eThe International Journal of Art \u0026amp; Design Education\u003c/em\u003e 35(1), pp. 21-35.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBoone H. N. J., Boone, D. A. (2012). Analyzing Likert Data. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Extension\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e50(2).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBoud, D., Cohen, R. \u0026amp; Sampson, J. (2001). \u003cem\u003ePeer learning in higher education: Learning from and with each other.\u003c/em\u003e London: Kogan Page.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBryman A. (1992). Quantitative and Qualitative Research: Further Reflections on Their Integration. In: Brannen, J. eds. \u003cem\u003eMixing Methods: Quantitative and Qualitative Research.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eRoutledge, pp. 57-80.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBurke, A. (2015). Curating School Cultures: Studios in the Context of School Agendas. In Bates, D., Mitsogianni, V., \u0026amp; Ramirez-Lovering, D. eds. \u003cem\u003eStudio Futures: Changing trajectories in architectural education\u003c/em\u003e. Melbourne: Uro Publications, pp. 9-13.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCattell R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. \u003cem\u003eMultivariate Behavioral Research\u003c/em\u003e, I, 245-276.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCeylan S., Sahin P., Se\u0026ccedil;men S., Somer M. E., Suher K. H. (2021). An evaluation of online architectural design studios during COVID-19 outbreak. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Architectural Research\u003c/em\u003e 15(1), pp. 203-218.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eChen W. (2016). Exploring the learning problems and resource usage of undergraduate industrial design students in design studio courses. \u003cem\u003eInt J Technol Des Educ\u003c/em\u003e 26, pp. 461-487.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCherry, K. (2024). What Is Sociocultural Theory? Recognizing the role that society and socialization play in learning. Available at: https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-sociocultural-theory-2795088 [Accessed in: 13 June 2025]\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCoffey A., Atkinson P. (1996). \u003cem\u003eMaking Sense of Qualitative Data: Complementary Research Strategies\u003c/em\u003e. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications Ltd.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eConnaway L. S., Powell, R. 5th ed. (2010). \u003cem\u003eBasic research methods for librarians\u003c/em\u003e. Santa Barbara, CA: Libraries Unlimited.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCross N. et al. (1996). \u003cem\u003eAnalysing Design Activity.\u003c/em\u003e Chichester: John Wiley \u0026amp; Sons.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCuff D. (1991). \u003cem\u003eArchitecture: the Story of Practice\u003c/em\u003e. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDenzin N. K. 3rd ed. (1989). \u003cem\u003eThe research act: a theoretical introduction to sociological methods\u003c/em\u003e. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eEl-Hussein M. O. M. (2012). \u003cem\u003eTowards a theory of mobile learning: The design of learning spaces for the higher education landscape\u003c/em\u003e. PhD Thesis, Faculty of Informatics and Design, Cape Peninsula University of Technology.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFleischmann K. (2019). From studio practice to online design education: Can we teach design online?, \u003cem\u003eCanadian Journal of Learning and Technology\u003c/em\u003e. 45 (1) 1-19.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFlick U. (2020). \u003cem\u003eIntroducing Research Methodology\u003c/em\u003e. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFrankfort-Nachmias C., Nachmias D. 7th ed. (2008). \u003cem\u003eResearch Methods in the Social Science\u003c/em\u003e. New York: Worth Publishers\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGeertz C. (1973). Thick Description: Towards an interpretive theory of culture. Geertz, C. eds. \u003cem\u003eIn The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays\u003c/em\u003e. New York: Basic Books, pp. 3-30.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCharmaz K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. London: SAGE Publications.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGhassan A., Bohemia E. (2015). \u0026nbsp;The Global Studio: Incorporating Peer-Learning into the Design Curriculum. \u003cem\u003eArt\u003c/em\u003e 5(1), pp. 1-11.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGillham B. (2008). \u003cem\u003eObservation Techniques: Structured to Unstructured\u003c/em\u003e. London; New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGillham B. (2008). \u003cem\u003eSmall-Scale Social Survey Methods\u003c/em\u003e. London; New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGray C. M. (2013). \u003cem\u003eInformal peer critique and the negotiation of habitus in a design studio\u003c/em\u003e. J. B. Reitan, et al. eds. Proceedings of DRS // CUMULUS 2013, 2nd International Conference for Design Education Researchers. Oslo. 14-17 May 2013.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGuest G., et al. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. \u003cem\u003eField Methods\u003c/em\u003e18(1). pp. 59-82.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eG\u0026uuml;ler K. (2015). Social media-based learning in the design studio: A comparative study, Computers \u0026amp; Education. 87 192-203.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHam J. J., Schnabel M. A. (2011). Web 2.0 virtual design studio: social networking as facilitator of design education. \u003cem\u003eArchitectural Science Review\u003c/em\u003e 54(2), 108-116.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHarding J. 2nd ed. (2019). \u003cem\u003eQualitative Data Analysis: From Start to Finish\u003c/em\u003e. London: Sage.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHarrison,A., Hutton L. (2014). \u003cem\u003eDesign for the changing educational landscape: space, place and the future of learning\u003c/em\u003e. London; New York: Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHettithanthri U., Hansen P. (2022). Design studio practice in the context of architectural education: a narrative literature review. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Technology and Design Education\u003c/em\u003e 32, pp: 2343-2364\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eIoannou O. (2018). Opening up design studio education using blended and networked formats. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education\u003c/em\u003e 15(47), pp. 1-16.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eIranmanesh A., Onur Z. (2021). \u0026nbsp;Mandatory Virtual Design Studio for All: Exploring the Transformations of Architectural Education amidst the Global Pandemic. \u003cem\u003eiJADE\u003c/em\u003e 40(1), pp. 251-267.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eJamieson, S. (2017). \u003cem\u003eHow to: Analyse Qualitative Data\u003c/em\u003e. Tombs, M. eds. Series: How to:. Cardiff: School of Postgraduate Medical and Dental Education, Wales College of Medicine, Cardiff University.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKaiser H.F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. \u003cem\u003eEducational and Psychological Measurement\u003c/em\u003e 20, pp. 141-151.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKaplan A. M., Haenlein M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media. \u003cem\u003eBusiness Horizons\u003c/em\u003e 53, pp. 59-68.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKoch A., Schwennsen K., Dutton T. A., Smith D. (2002). \u003cem\u003eThe Redesign of Studio Culture\u003c/em\u003e. Available at: http://www.aias.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/The_Redesign_of_Studio_Culture_2002.pdf [Accessed: 26 June 2020].\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKomarzy\u0026acute;nska-\u0026acute;Swie\u0026acute;sciak E., Adams B., Thomas L. (2021). Transition from Physical Design Studio to Emergency Virtual Design Studio. Available Teaching and Learning Methods and Tools\u0026mdash;A Case Study. \u003cem\u003eBuildings\u003c/em\u003e 2021, 11, 312.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKrejcie R. V., Morgan D.W. (1970). Determine Sample Size For Research Activities. \u003cem\u003eEducational and Psychological Measurement\u003c/em\u003e 30, pp. 607-610.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKvan T. (2001). The pedagogy of virtual design studios, Automation in Construction. 10 345-353. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0926-5805(00)00051-0\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLave, J., and Wenger, E. (1991). \u003cem\u003eSituated learning: legitimate peripheral participation.\u003c/em\u003e Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLee N. (2006). Design as a learning cycle: A conversational experience. \u003cem\u003eStudies in Learning, Evaluation Innovation and Development\u003c/em\u003e 3(2), pp. 12-22.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMcClean D., Hourigan N. (2013). Critical Dialogue in Architecture Studio: Peer Interaction and Feedback. \u003cem\u003eJournal for Education in the Built Environment\u003c/em\u003e 8(1), pp. 35-57.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMarshalsey L., Sclater M. (2020). Together but Apart: Creating and Supporting Online Learning Communities in an Era of Distributed Studio Education, \u003cem\u003eiJADE\u003c/em\u003e. 39 (4) 826-840. https://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12331\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMcCombes S. (2019). Sampling Methods | Types and Techniques Explained. Available at: https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/sampling-methods/ [Accessed in: 11 March 2022]\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMohajan H. K., (2018). Qualitative research methodology in social sciences and related subjects. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Economic Development, Environment and People\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e7(1), pp. 23-48.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMorton J. (2012). Communities of practice in higher education: A challenge from the discipline of architecture, Linguistics and Education. 23 100-111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2011.04.002\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNicol D. and Macfarlane-Dick D. (2006). Formative assessment and self regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice. \u003cem\u003eStudies in Higher Education\u003c/em\u003e 31(2), pp. 199-218.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eOrr S., Bloxham S. (2012). Making judgements about students making work: Lecturers\u0026rsquo; assessment practices in art and design, \u003cem\u003eArts \u0026amp; Humanities in Higher Education\u003c/em\u003e. 12 (2-3) 234-253.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u0026Ouml;stlund U., et al. (2011). Combining qualitative and quantitative research within mixed method research designs: \u003cem\u003eA methodological review. International Journal of Nursing Studies\u003c/em\u003e 48(2011), pp. 369-383.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePark S. (2020). Rethinking design studios as an integrative multi-layered collaboration environment, Journal of Urban Design. 25 (4) 523-550.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePektaş Ş. T. (2015). The virtual design studio on the cloud: a blended and distributed approach for technology-mediated design education. \u003cem\u003eArchitectural Science Review\u003c/em\u003e 58(3), pp. 255-265.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePhillippi J., Lauderdale J. (2018). A Guide to Field Notes for Qualitative Research: Context and Conversation. \u003cem\u003eQualitative Health Research\u003c/em\u003e, 28(3), pp. 381- 388.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePelman, B., Zoran, A. R. (2023). Informal learning in architectural education through sociomaterial approaches: Towards a network-based pedagogy in design education. \u003cem\u003eThe Design Journal\u003c/em\u003e, 26(5), pp. 776-797.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRiche P. L., Tanner, K. eds (1998). \u003cem\u003eObservation and its Application to Social Work: Rather Like Breathing\u003c/em\u003e. London; Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRoberts, A., Coombs, S. (2023). Conceptualising the Architectural Curriculum around Knowing, Acting and Being. Proceedings of aae 2023 Productive-Disruptive: spaces of exploration in-between architectural pedagogy and practice. Cardiff, UK. 12-15th July 2023.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRodgers P. A., Caldwell N. H. M., Clarkson P. J., Huxor A. P. (2001). The management of concept design knowledge in modern product development organizations. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing\u003c/em\u003e 14(1), pp. 108-115.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRodriguez C., et al. (2018). Collaborative learning in architectural education: Benefits of combining conventional studio, virtual design studio and live projects. \u003cem\u003eBritish Journal of Educational Technology\u003c/em\u003e 49(3), pp. 337-353.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSch\u0026ouml;n D.A. (1983). \u003cem\u003eThe reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action\u003c/em\u003e. Aldershot: Ashgate.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSch\u0026ouml;n, D.A. (1985). \u003cem\u003eThe design studio: an exploration of its traditions and potential\u003c/em\u003e. London: RIBA Publications Ltd.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eShaffer D.W. (2003). Portrait of the Oxford design studio: An ethnography of design pedagogy. \u003cem\u003eWCER Working Paper\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e2003-11\u003cem\u003e.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eMadison: University of Wisconsin-Madison.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eUluoglu B. (2000). Design knowledge communicated in studio critiques, Design Studies. 21 (1) 33-58.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eVosinakis S., Koutsabasis P. (2013). \u0026nbsp;Interaction Design Studio Learning in Virtual Worlds. \u003cem\u003eVirtual Reality\u003c/em\u003e 17, pp. 59-75.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAuthor. (2023). The comparison between architecture students\u0026rsquo; peer learning outside formal timetable activities within physical and virtual environments during the COVID-19 pandemic. \u003cem\u003eIndoor and Built Environment\u003c/em\u003e, 32(10), pp. 2064-2082.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWatkins M. W. (2018). Exploratory Factor Analysis: A Guide to Best Practice. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Black Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, 44(3), 219\u0026ndash;246. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095798418771807\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWebster, H. (2005). The Architectural Review A study of ritual, acculturation and reproduction in architectural education. \u003cem\u003eArts \u0026amp; Humanities in Higher Education\u003c/em\u003e 4(3), pp. 265\u0026ndash;282.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWebster H. (2008). Architectural Education after Sch\u0026ouml;n: Cracks, Blurs, Boundaries and Beyond. \u003cem\u003eJournal for Education in the Built Environment\u003c/em\u003e 3(2), pp. 63-74.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWenger, E. (1998). \u003cem\u003eCommunity of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity.\u003c/em\u003e New York: Cambridge University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWilliamson K. (2018). Populations and samples. In: Williamson, K. and Johanson, G. eds. \u003cem\u003eResearch Methods: Information, Systems, and Contexts\u003c/em\u003e. Elsvier Ltd, pp. 359-377.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eYorgancıoglu D., Tunali S. (2020). Changing pedagogic identities of tutors and students in the design studio: Case study of desk and peer critiques. \u003cem\u003eArt, Design \u0026amp; Communication in Higher Education\u003c/em\u003e 19(1), pp. 19-32.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eYu R., Ostwald M. J., Gu N., Skates H., Feast S. (2022). Evaluating the effectiveness of online teaching in architecture courses. Architectural Science Review 65(2), pp. 89-100.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"humanities-and-social-sciences-communications","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"palcomms","sideBox":"Learn more about [Humanities \u0026 Social Sciences Communications](http://www.nature.com/palcomms/)","snPcode":"41599","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/41599/3","title":"Humanities and Social Sciences Communications","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Nature AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"Architecture, Peer Learning, Design Studio, Virtual Environment","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7888358/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7888358/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eAlongside the development of architectural education, especially the engagement of virtual and distance platforms, traditional design studio pedagogy has been challenged in this discipline. This paper makes a thematic analysis to compare architecture students\u0026rsquo; informal learning experiences between peers in physical and virtual environments. The relative data are collected by both quantitative and qualitative measures, divided into two phases. The first phase was processed within three British architectural institutions, whose students were taken surveys to collect their preferences on learning within the conventional design studio and remotely; the second source was collected from observations and interviews conducted explicitly in one British architectural institution. Those data were analysed to summarise the main factors which affect architecture students\u0026rsquo; learning experiences within the design studio and virtual environment, respectively. The study identified four main factors, which are face-to-face and distance contacts, studio atmosphere and its alternatives, peer-to-peer bonds, and the form of a community and/or a group. Additionally, research has shown that the majority of architecture students have a preference for studying in a studio environment that is created within a traditional design studio atmosphere. This suggests that the virtual platforms are unable to fully replace the physical design studio.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"A Study of Analysing Characteristics of Students’ Informal Learning between Peers within Different Environments--- Taking British Architecture Schools as Examples","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-01-09 09:17:25","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7888358/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2026-02-23T13:58:26+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-01-27T10:54:47+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-01-21T20:24:12+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-01-11T15:38:26+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"246278020599424438788652230716672563412","date":"2026-01-09T12:47:00+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"146207337590953962949043095267599275435","date":"2026-01-09T07:47:12+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"176279826810004658503241122675357969845","date":"2026-01-08T15:29:43+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"292358340580688429225377065191054060590","date":"2026-01-07T16:21:10+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"275726524241628644200317865657021515090","date":"2026-01-07T10:19:06+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2026-01-07T07:37:35+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2025-12-17T12:08:47+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-11-22T09:44:55+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-11-06T12:36:45+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Humanities and Social Sciences Communications","date":"2025-11-06T12:19:08+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"humanities-and-social-sciences-communications","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"palcomms","sideBox":"Learn more about [Humanities \u0026 Social Sciences Communications](http://www.nature.com/palcomms/)","snPcode":"41599","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/41599/3","title":"Humanities and Social Sciences Communications","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Nature AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"fabd2197-2460-4374-bb16-af3f0a6c7fa1","owner":[],"postedDate":"January 9th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[{"id":60827177,"name":"Social science/Education"},{"id":60827178,"name":"Biological sciences/Psychology"},{"id":60827179,"name":"Social science/Psychology"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-04-14T16:23:19+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-01-09 09:17:25","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7888358","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7888358","identity":"rs-7888358","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}