Examining the impact of students’ ratings of architectural design studio on graduation project before and midst COVID-19
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The interest in architectural design education is the haven for the development of the profession of the architect; the architectural-design-studio is the key-stone in architectural education, the design process in the labor market or in the design studio is an intertwined process. Thus, the design studio needs more quantitative studies that study the performance of architecture students, in addition to the problem of the emergence of the COVID 19 epidemic requires contemporary studies to determine its impact on the architectural design studio. The study key objective is to investigate the association between sophomore-level students' scores (SLOS)/Design studio 2 (DS.2)/Design studio 3 (DS.3) and graduation-project overall-scores (GPOS), furthermore, the study aims to examine the relationship between the overall scores of the graduation project students during and before COVID-19, to test the gender differences in the graduation project one of the key objectives of this study, the current study is a quantitative study conducted on 96 students of the architecture program in Canadian-international-collage (CIC), Egypt. The students’ scores were tracked from Fall-2013 to Spring-2020, the study hypotheses consisted of 28 hypotheses. The study adopted a methodology consisting of three stages: 1. Dataset Processing, 2. Dataset Mining, 3. Data Analysis. SPSS v.20 utilized in the previous stages. Statistical tests related to quantitative data were used to examine the results (ANOVA, T-test, Pearson, and Spearman).The required assumptions for the aforementioned test inspected. The results showed a direct proportion between SLOS and GPOS, and there were statistically significant differences between overall scores during COVID-19 (C19GPOS) and before COVID-19 (NC19GPOS). The results of the statistical tests revealed the progress of COVID-19 students in scores compared to the rest of the students who studied in the conventional design studio, obviously, no significant differences between gender and the graduation project scores noticed. The results showed that students with good grades and pass grades in the sophomore-design-studio their grades in the graduation project rise to very good, while the grades of very good students remain the same, students of excellent grade, their grades remain the same value with a clear decrease.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".