310

Special Volume: Design Education: Explorations and Prospects for a Better Built Environment
Ashraf M. Salama and Michael J. Crosbie (editors)

HOW DO ARCHITECTS THINK?

LEARNING STYLES AND ARCHITECTURAL EDUCATION

Magda Mostafa and Hoda Mostafa

Abstract and verbal learning; moderate spatial ability against

Architecture is a complex process involving the divergent neutral learning styles; and high spatial ability against both
resolution of a multitude of factors- social, ecological, active and visual learning. The results show a particular
technical, economic, functional, ethical and aesthetic. corroboration between high spatial ability and active
Despite this diversity all architectural problem solving learning in the entire group of students- both study, and
processes share one common factor- they must be control- as well as a strong corroboration between high
resolved spatially. This paper sets out to explore how spatial ability and visual learning- with a higher correlation
best to develop these spatial thinking skills in young in architecture students, reaching 100% in some classes.
architects through addressing their learning styles in It is hoped that by understanding how our students think
education. The primary hypothesis tested is twofold. First- and learn, rather than operating on assumptions, we
using the Solomon & Felder (2007) definition of learning can provide more responsive and customized modes of
styles and their Index of Learning Styles Questionnaire- learning and teaching in our studios.
the average profile of a study group from the freshmen
and sophomore architectural student body at the
Architectural Engineering Program of the American Keywords
University in Cairo is mapped and compared to that Architectural education, pedagogy, learning styles,
of a control group from the general population of the spatial ability.
university from a cross-section of majors. Secondly, using
the Spatial Ability test by Newton & Bristoll (2009), the
Introduction
spatial ability of both the control and study groups are
measured and compared. The analysis of these results Architectural education is based primarily around
tests the assumption that the majority of architectural the design studio as a pivot and gathering point
students will be visual, rather than verbal; and active, of all knowledge and skill accreted throughout
rather than reflective, learners; as well as exhibiting the curriculum. Within this design studio the
higher spatial abilities, as compared to the control
Practices

realm of 3-dimensional analysis, assessment,

group.
organization, manipulation and representation
The performance of students in these tests are then occupies a predominant role. A major and
correlated against their learning styles profile using the necessary part of every architect’s education
following sets- low spatial ability against both reflective becomes the ability to think, evaluate, problem

Copyright © 2010 Archnet-IJAR, Volume 4 - Issues 2-3 - July and November 2010 - (310-317)

Archnet-IJAR, International Journal of Architectural Research

 How do Architects Think? Learning Styles and Architectural Education
311

solve and generate form three dimensionally that is required of the professional world. Finally
MAGDA MOSTAFA AND HODA MOSTAFA

and volumetrically, on the cognitive as well as we assume that our assessment strategies and
communicative level. This objective is never methods of evaluation reflect such spatial, visual
more so the case than in an age when digital and active abilities, and that students exhibiting
technology is permeating our every activity such talents will perform better in the design
bringing with it the risk of replacing our student’s studio, as attested to by the grade with which
cognition with that of a micro-processor- where we award them.
computers are very tempting replacements for
the basic skills of volumetric thinking and three But is this the case? The objective of this paper is
dimensional problem solving. to test these assumptions through a case study
of the Architectural Engineering Program at the
Many pedagogical practices in design studios American University in Cairo.
today have been based on a number of
assumptions, particularly those revolving around
such abilities. Each of us- as an educator of
Methodology
young architects- has an image and template in The methodology used to test the above
our minds of what makes a good architect, and outlined assumptions involves two stages,
consequently what makes a good architectural assessing spatial ability and learning style at
student. Such templates usually revolve around each stage. The first stage takes a comparative
issues of critical thinking, artistic capability, look at a study group of students at the freshman
geometric acuity and spatial problem solving and sophomore level of the architectural
and thinking. Although with the increasing engineering program and compares them to
complexity of architectural practice today, a control group of students from the general
research tells us that we must address the multiple population of the university, with a diverse
intelligences of our students, visual and spatial cross-section of majors and intended majors,
form generation skills remain at the forefront of as represented by those enrolled in one of the
the skill set we seek and cultivate in our students core curriculum freshman courses. The total
(D’Souza, N., 2007). We imagine students who number of students participating in the test is
learn through doing and experiment and explore 70, evenly distributed between the control and
creatively the three-dimensional world that it will study groups.
become their responsibility to shape.
The second stage takes a look at the correlation
We assume that it is those with spatial ability and between spatial ability and learning style.
visual/active learning styles that will be drawn Specific trends are looked at, as represented
towards, and accepted into, our architectural by the following correlation sets- low spatial
programs (Goldschmidt, G., 2000). We also ability with both reflective and verbal learning;
assume that our curricula are structured as such moderate spatial ability with both neutral learning
to nurture and empower these abilities, taking styles; and high spatial ability with both active
what initial skill and ability is present in each and visual learning. Research has shown that
student and cultivating it to grow towards a level students learning style profiles are not absolute,

Archnet-IJAR, International Journal of Architectural Research - Volume 4 - Issues 2-3 - July and November 2010
 How do Architects Think? Learning Styles and Architectural Education
312

and may shift according to the subject matter mapping and navigation. Scores are measured
MAGDA MOSTAFA AND HODA MOSTAFA

at hand (Smith, P., Dalton, J., 2005) nonetheless out of 80, and stratified as follows- low spatial
they provide a primary indicator of how an ability for those awarded between 0-30,
individual student assimilates knowledge into moderate spatial ability for those awarded
skill. Research has also shown that education between 40-50, and high spatial for those
can alter learning styles towards more favorable awarded between ability 60-80.
modes relevant to the material and knowledge
being experienced and assimilated (Harvey, R., The second tool is the Index of Learning Styles
2004). (Felder & Solomon, 2004). Research supports
the importance of addressing learning styles as
Much research has been conducted analyzing part of pedagogical development, particularly
the complex process of design thinking (Lawson in areas related to design and engineering
2006), and consequently tools have been (Mills et al, 2005) & (Felder & Silverman 1988).
developed to quantify how designers think and This survey, consisting of 44 questions designed
learn. Among these tools are psychometric to ascertain the subject’s learning style profile,
testing and learning styles profiling, examples maps a subject’s preferred style according to
of which are used for both tools applied in this a 4 sets of learning style pairs using a bipolar
research. 11 point scale. These pairs represent opposite
extremes of each learning style spectrum and
Each of the above study stages uses two tools are- active vs. reflective; sensing vs. intuitive;
to assess the spatial ability and learning styles visual vs. verbal; and sequential vs. global. A
profile of students. The first tool is a Spatial Ability student may be classified as one of the poles of
test adapted from the work of Newton & Bristoll learning - active or reflective; sensing or intuitive;
(2009) - with permission from the publisher. visual or verbal; sequential or global- if they
Based on psychometrics this test uses a multiple score from 5-11 along either pole. A student is
choice format with 8 questions. Psychometric considered neutral if they score between 0-3
testing has been established through research along either pole. A particular attention is paid
as a viable tool to assess spatial visualization to the visual-verbal and active-reflective sets, as
and problem solving skills, as well as a predictor they are the most relevant to the assumptions of
of performance in architectural programs. the research.
Although not sufficient to independently
ascertain architectural ability, it gives an Patterns throughout the various student cohorts
indication of aptitude and is used by various of the study group and control group are
architectural schools worldwide (Goldschmidt, looked at and trends are outlined, particularly
G., 2000). in correlation with the assumptions set forth in
the research- namely a prevalence of visual
The test uses 8 visual puzzles and maps, with and active learners amongst students of
multiple choice answers. Each set of questions architecture- as opposed to those of the general
looks at one of the following spatial abilities- population- with a tendency to increase more
shape matching with spatial manipulation; towards these poles throughout the program.
spatial assembly; visual/spatial manipulation; Research has shown that such trends are not

Archnet-IJAR, International Journal of Architectural Research - Volume 4 - Issues 2-3 - July and November 2010
 How do Architects Think? Learning Styles and Architectural Education
313

uncommon in architectural students, particularly Results and Discussion

MAGDA MOSTAFA AND HODA MOSTAFA

in design studios, and that specifically designed

The first stage of the testing indicated the
studio exercises can actually shift these profiles
following trends in Spatial Ability amongst the
(Mostafa, 2008).
study and control groups. The study group
The reliability of this tool has been verified (Litzinger of architecture students was found to exhibit
et al, 2007) and although previous research has predominantly high spatial abilities, with 60% of
looked at the link between learning styles and the freshmen and sophomore students scoring
design acuity, it has been primarily using the between 60 and 80. This trend was also found
experiential learning model by Kolb (Kolb 1984). in the control group, with 53% of the general
Such research has focused on the importance population scoring between 60 and 80. (Figure
of the active pole of the active/reflective skill 1).
set and the assimilating experiential learner as
opposed to the accommodating learner in
their link to student performance in the design
studio (Demirbas & Demirkan, 2003) and (Kvan
& Yunyan, 2005). This paper sets out to verify
these findings and expands them to include
the visual/verbal skill set, in its correlation to
performance in the design studio, as well as a
distinguishing factor of architectural student, as
compared to those from other disciplines.
Figure 1: Spatial Abilities- Study Group (architecture) vs.
These surveys were conducted over a 15 Control Group (general). (Source: Authors).
week semester and administered to a random
sample of students currently enrolled in the
core curriculum courses and architectural The distinction between the study and control
program respectively. Both surveys were posted groups became more apparent in the learning
on an online academic portal, accessible styles profiling - with 100% of the architecture
to all students enrolled in the test. All data sophomores testing as visual learners. This is
was analyzed with the help of the university’s followed by 70% of architecture freshman and
Center for Learning and Teaching to preserve 61% of the general population of the control
anonymity of students. For academic integrity group (table 2). This distribution seems to confirm
purposes, students were made aware that the two the things- the first is that architecture
results of the test would not influence their course students are predominantly better visual
assessment in any way and any publication of learners than general students, and their visual
results would be summative and anonymous. learning skills increase as they move through the
program. Given that learning styles have been
shown not to be absolute, or permanent, but
rather subject to development and change

Archnet-IJAR, International Journal of Architectural Research - Volume 4 - Issues 2-3 - July and November 2010
 How do Architects Think? Learning Styles and Architectural Education
314

(Harvey, R., 2004), this seems to indicate that the between high spatial ability and visual learning,
MAGDA MOSTAFA AND HODA MOSTAFA

curriculum set forth in the program is successfully in both study and control groups. Architecture
shifting students thinking towards the more students of the study group showed a 60%
visual. Additionally, given that learning styles and 100% correlation of spatial ability with
may shift according to subject matter (Smith, P., visual learning amongst the freshmen and
Dalton, J., 2005), and the fact that these tests sophomore groups respectively, as compared
were conducted by design professors in the to 65% amongst the general population (Figures
design studio, students may also be applying 4, 5, and 6). This confirms, firstly, the strong link
more visual learning to the design process. between spatial ability and visual learning
styles, and secondly its predominance as a
The distinction, although apparent, is not as phenomena amongst architecture students.
exaggerated in the comparative analysis of
the active-reflective set amongst the study and
control groups. Again architectural sophomores
were seen to be the most active with 50% scoring
between 5 and 11 on the active learning scale,
confirming the active pole as the preferable
architectural trait. This is followed by 39% of
architecture freshmen and 25% of the general
population scoring as high active learners.
Interestingly 50% of architecture sophomores
were also found to be reflective, with none Figure 2: Visual vs. Verbal Learning Styles- Study Group
scoring within the neutral range, illustrating an (architecture) vs. Control Group (general). (Source: Authors).
intriguing polarization of the group. Although
not as indicative, these results also show the
trend of architecture students to be more active
learners, as compared to general students,
confirming another of the assumptions of this
research (Figure 3). They also show the role
of the curriculum in shifting students learning,
particularly in the design studio, towards the
more active mode.

The second stage of the research illustrates the Figure 3: Active vs. Reflective Learning Styles- Study Group
(architecture) vs. Control Group (general). (Source: Authors).
correlations assumed by the research in the
following sets- low spatial ability against each of
reflective and verbal learning; moderate spatial Regarding Spatial Ability and the Reflective-
ability against neutral learning styles; and high Active learning style set, again a strong
spatial ability against each of active and visual correlation was found amongst the study group
learning. The highest correlation was found of architecture students. One class of freshmen

Archnet-IJAR, International Journal of Architectural Research - Volume 4 - Issues 2-3 - July and November 2010
 How do Architects Think? Learning Styles and Architectural Education
315

exhibited a 100% correlation between spatial with a 70% correlation between the two. There
MAGDA MOSTAFA AND HODA MOSTAFA

ability and active learning, with an average was only a 20% correlation between low spatial
correlation of 50% across the entire study group. skills and reflective learning; as well as between
Sophomore architecture students generally high spatial skills and active learning in this group.
showed a tendency toward a higher correlation This seems to confirm the natural distribution of
between moderate spatial ability and neutral this correlation amongst the general population
reflective-active learning, at 67%, although of the control group.
there was a 33% correlation between high
spatial ability and active learning. Again this
may indicate an influence of curriculum, where
more design foundations courses involving
hands- on, manual and active process are
found at the freshman level, shifting to a more
balanced approach as the student moves
through the curriculum. It also indicates a
weaker link between spatial ability- as assumed
to be required of a student of architecture-
with active learning, but rather towards a more Figure 5: Correlation between Spatial Ability & Verbal
balanced neutral type of learning, a hybrid vs. Visual Learning in Sophomore Study Group. (Source:
Authors).
between physical or experiential learning
(active) and cognitive or perceptive learning
(reflective).

Figure 6: Correlation between Spatial Ability & Verbal vs.

Visual Learning in Control Group. (Source: Authors).

Figure 4: Correlation between Spatial Ability & Verbal vs.

Visual Learning in Freshmen Study Group. (Source: Authors). Conclusion and Recommendations
In conclusion this research seems to confirm a
This correlation was not as strong amongst the number of the assumptions set forth in this paper-
control group, which generally exhibited a that architecture students exhibit higher spatial
tendency towards a higher correlation of the abilities and generally learn more visually and
moderate ability to neutral learning style set, actively than the average student. Additionally

Archnet-IJAR, International Journal of Architectural Research - Volume 4 - Issues 2-3 - July and November 2010
 How do Architects Think? Learning Styles and Architectural Education
316

they show a higher correlation between strong Finally, it is proposed that with a better
MAGDA MOSTAFA AND HODA MOSTAFA

spatial ability and visual learning, to a high understanding of what our students know, and
degree, and strong spatial ability and active how they learn and acquire that knowledge,
learning to a lesser degree. The results also the better prepared we shall be to teach them,
indicate that the curriculum at the American preparing them to be the comprehensive
University’s Architectural Engineering program architectural thinkers required of this changing
is preparing its students favorably with spatial age.
abilities, and shifting learning styles towards
the more active, and particularly towards the
increasingly visual. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the Chairman,
Recent research encourages educators to Program Director and Design Studio team of the
formulate their curricula and modify their Architecture Program at the American University
teaching methods to accommodate the learning in Cairo, for access to their studios and their
styles of its students (Smith & Dalton 2005). The valuable experience. They would also like to
results of this research paper can therefore be extend their gratitude to the Center for Learning
used a departure point for the program at the and Teaching at the American University in Cairo,
American University to develop its curriculum to for the preparation and data management of the
address such an accommodation, particularly assessment tools used throughout this research.
of the visual and active learning styles of its
students within the design studio. Teaching References
material, references, exercises, assessment
Demirbas, O., & Demirkan, H. (2003). Focus on
techniques and general pedagogy will shift with architectural design process through learning styles.
this accommodation- hopefully to the more Design Studies, 24(5), 437-456.
favorable. This process should be documented,
and further research may track the progress of D’Souza, N. (2007). Design intelligences: A case for multiple
accommodating the curriculum to address the intelligences in architectural design. ArchNet International
Journal of Architectural Research, 1(2), 15-34.
conclusive results of this research.
Felder, R., & Silverman, L. (1988). Learning and
Further research could also look at the teaching styles in engineering education.
correlation between the sets of spatial ability, Engineering Education, 78(7), 674-681.
visual learning and active learning- with student
Felder, R., & Soloman, B. (2004). Index of learning
performance. Again previous research indicates styles. Retrieved on 20 September 2009 from http://
such a correlation which can be verified (Kvan & www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/ILSpage.html
Yunyun, 2005). This will give an indication whether
current assessment strategies and tools are Goldschmidt, G. et.al., (2000). Who should be
appropriately awarding students’ spatial abilities a designer? Controlling admission into schools
and visual/ active learning, and additionally of architecture. Unpublished Research. Delft,
whether the material is appropriately addressing Netherlands: University of Delft.
and improving these skills. Harvey, R. (2004). Beyond learning styles:

Archnet-IJAR, International Journal of Architectural Research - Volume 4 - Issues 2-3 - July and November 2010
 How do Architects Think? Learning Styles and Architectural Education
317

Understanding the learning processes of engineering Field in 2008 and was nominated for the 2005 UNESCO
MAGDA MOSTAFA AND HODA MOSTAFA

students through the interactive learning model. In Prize for Research and Training in Special Needs
ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings “Engineering Education for Children. She has published various
Education Researches New Heights. papers and article in the National Autistic Society’s
Communication magazine, ArchNet-IJAR and Open
Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience House International and is currently working as a
as the source of learning and development. New special needs design consultant at the Cairo based
Jersey: Prentice Hall. architectural firm Progressive Architects. She is an
Kvan, T., & Yunyan, J. (2005). Students’ learning active member of the Union of International Architects
styles and their correlation with performance in (UIA) Commission on Architectural Education and
architectural design studio. Design Studies, 26, 19-34 Validation. In 2008 she was President of the UIA’s
International Student Competition Jury, sat as the UIA
Lawson, B. (2006). How designers think: The design Representative to the Jury for the Lebanese Ministry
process demystified. Oxford and Burlington: Elsevier. of Culture’s “House of Arts and Culture” Design
Competition in 2009 and will be representing the UIA
Litzenger, T. et al (2007). Psychometric study of
at the Velux International Student Competition in
the index of learning styles. Journal of Engineering
Copenhagen in June 2010. She can be contacted at
Education, 96(4), 309-319.
magda.h.mostafa at gmail.com
Mills, J. et al (2005). Learning about learning
styles: Can this improves engineering education. -------------------------------------
MountainRise, 2(1). Retrieved from http://www.wcu. Hoda M H Mostafa
edu/facctr/mountainrise/archive/vol2no1/html/ Hoda Mostafa MD, is currently an Associate Professor
learning_about_learning.html accessed 05/09/2009 of Ophthalmology at Cairo University. She is also an
Mostafa, M. (2008). Thinking outside the box: adjunct Associate Professor at the School of Science
Addressing and enhancing visual/ spatial and active and Engineering, American University in Cairo where
learning in architectural education. Design Principles she teaches Scientific Thinking, part of the core
and Practices International Journal, 2(1). requirements for all students. She contributes on a part-
time basis at the Centre for Learning and Teaching
Newton, P., & Bristoll, H. (n.d.) Spatial ability test 1. at AUC as an instructional technologist specialising
Retrieved on 1 September 2009 from http://www. in pedagogical consultations for faculty, assessment
psychometric-success.com/downloads/download- of teaching and learning as well as development
spatial-ability-practice-tests.htm and integration of technology into the classroom.
Her teaching interests revolve around the sciences in
Smith, P., & Dalton, J. (2005). Getting to grips with
higher education. With a background in the medical
learning styles. Australian Government: NCVER.
sciences and currently practicing medicine, teaching
science related courses at a university level is a
------------------------------------- challenge she embraces. She is currently interested
Magda Mostafa in developing the tools and techniques that enable
Magda Mostafa, PhD is currently an Associate Professor scientific literacy among students. She is also involved
at the Construction and Architectural Engineering at in classroom action research projects in a variety of
the American University in Cairo. Her research interests disciplines through her collaboration with the Centre
include Architectural Education and Special Needs for Learning and Teaching. She can be contacted at
Design. She has received various awards including hodamostafa at aucegypt.edu
the International Award for Excellence in the Design

Archnet-IJAR, International Journal of Architectural Research - Volume 4 - Issues 2-3 - July and November 2010