International Journal of Architecture, Engineering and Construction

Vol 8, No 3, September 2019, 32-40

Designing, Conducting and Evaluating the Effectiveness of an

Integrated Public Interest Design Studio
Mohammad Saquib∗

Faculty of Architecture and Ekistics, Jamia Millia Islamia University, New Delhi, India

Abstract: The design studio has often been criticized for not keeping pace with the changing needs of the society and
profession. Attempts to evolve alternative studio pedagogies to counter issues include concepts such as sustainability, compu-
tational thinking and social perspective to design. Public interest design (PID), advocates a socially conscious approach to
design. The research aimed to develop a framework for the integration of the concept of PID in the conventional design studio,
and measure its outcome through a mixed methods approach. A studio based on the designed framework was conducted
for a single group in 2017 in the second year of the undergraduate course. Analysis of qualitative and quantitative data
obtained from three different stakeholders i.e. students, faculty and users was performed through triangulation of data. The
findings revealed that PID integrated design studio is effective in enhancing learning outcomes among students and making a
worthwhile contribution in their immediate environments.

Keywords: PID, Public interest design, conventional design studio, design studio pedagogy, post occupancy evaluation

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7492/IJAEC.2019.016

1 INTRODUCTION While designers have tended to serve the interests of elites,

The definition of design has been evolving ever since design
led researches initiated in the 1960s. In accordance with cur-
rent transformations taking place in design and architecture,
three knowledge content areas have emerged in the disciplines
of environment behavior studies (EBS), sustainability and en-
vironmental consciousness, and digital technologies or virtual
practices (Salama 2015). Public interest design (PID) lies at
the intersection of EBS and sustainability.
EBS calls for the consideration of social and behavioral
aspects of architecture and the urban environment (Salama
2015). According to Moore, “the field of EBS emerged in an
attempt to develop empirically-based understandings of the
reciprocal interaction among individuals, social groups, cul-
tures and the environments in which they live, and to apply
such understandings to the better planning and design of the
built environment” (Moore 2004).
The three pillars of sustainable development i.e. environ-
mental, economic and social sustainability are relevant to the
design profession too. Although many advances in the envi-
ronmental design of buildings help the designer to avoid some
ecological impacts, these measures largely cater to the envi-
ronmental and economic concerns of sustainability. The “third
leg of sustainability,” or social sustainability is not addressed
effectively in design since the users are not involved in the
design process.
in almost all cultures, serving the needs of vulnerable groups
have been treated as an ethical issue, not as a professional
one. Advocates of PID therefore view design as an issue of
social justice (Meron and Scharphie 2015), and believe that
those affected by what is designed should actively participate
in the design process (Lundmark 2018).
1.1 History of Public Interest Design
PID has its roots in the social, economic and political voices
for the upliftment of the weaker sections of the society, and
evolved as the term ‘community design’ in the 1960s (Tok-
er et al. 2006). At the 1968 AIA Convention Whitney M.
Young Jr. in his keynote speech challenged the AIA mem-
bership on the issues of human/civil rights, diversity, and in-
clusion (Waldrep 2016) citing architecture’s failure to impact
social and civic culture in the communities that need design
the most (Abendroth and Bell 2016). The event marked the
beginning of efforts to broaden the meaning of diversity in ar-
chitecture (Bizios and Wakeford 2016). According to Sanoff
(2011), community consciousness in the 1960s led to the direct
involvement of public in the definition of their physical envi-
ronment and an increased sense of social responsibility. As a
result, community design centers (CDCs) were opened up to
offer design and planning services to the poor.

∗ Email: arsaquib@gmail.com.

32
 Saquib/International Journal of Architecture, Engineering and Construction 8 (2019) 32-40
1.2 Current Practices
The 2011 Latrobe Prize Research report titled “Public Inter-
est Practices in Architecture” coined the collective definition
of “public interest design” and marked the formal acceptance
of the term; one that included a general category of work
known by many names (Orlowski 2017). Currently, AIA stu-
dents Handbook 2016 mentions public interest design as one
of the contemporary influences that are creating new career
opportunities for architects (Waldrep 2016).
PID has been termed as a design for the broader public
good (Feldman et al. 2013), architecture for the common good
(Bizios and Wakeford 2016), serving the unserved or pro-bono
(Feldman et al. 2013), social design (Heller 2017), partici-
patory design (Sanoff 2011), community engaged design, or
design for impact (Etheridge and Wilson 2014) and a practice
that engages people in the design process (Abendroth and Bell
2016).
PID stands for a design for all as it advocates design “for the
people and by the people” (Saquib 2017). It is people-centered
and puts a high priority on community participation to tack-
le significant community challenges and improve lives (Bizios
and Wakeford 2016). PID is a way of thinking and practic-
ing that emphasizes the importance of social, economic, and
environmental factors (Bizios and Wakeford 2016).
2 PUBLIC INTEREST DESIGN
PEDAGOGY
In Architectural education, conventional design studios help
students in learning and constructing knowledge through re-
flection by repeatedly thinking over aspects of design, and
through design criticism by faculties and peers. It is how-
ever limited to boundaries of the classroom in most of the
design stages. Sidawi (2015) observed that architectural de-
sign pedagogy has incorrect focus and usually suffers from
programmatic and contextual context problems within which
buildings are created. Sidawi (2013) revealed the absence of
links between dimensions of creativity and the architectural
product and cited reasons such as non-adoption of a creative-
based design approach, lack of democracy in the design studio,
lack of quality social interaction and communications among
others in his findings. Orlowski (2017) noted that within tradi-
tional studio contexts, students are frequently presented with
projects lacking real “clients”, and only an abstract interpre-
tation of potential users. Sidawi (2015) summarized current
approaches to improve the design studio education which in-
cludes emphasis on collaboration and the social interaction,
creating an organizational style in studio education, estab-
lishing effective communications, early collaboration of vari-
ous system integrators within a project, finding and evaluating
multiple possible solutions to a problem, and use of TRIZ (i.e.
inventive problem solving).
Design studios can play a major role in transforming their
immediate environments into better ones by practicing social-
ly conscious designs as it will not only create opportunities for
experiential learning but will also help students to participate
in the building of livable communities. Alternative pedago-
gies such as live projects and design-build studios offer de-
sign education real dimensions of practice but lack communi-
33
ty engagement unless it is a “community design build project”
(Kraus 2017). PID offers a possibility to introduce design
problems that develop a social, economic and environmental
understanding of design. PID projects may help in building
a practical and socially conscious design approach within the
students. It provides a dialectic relationship with students at
one end and community at the other. A PID project affects
both in different ways. As noted by researchers, in various
perspectives, it provides situated learning (Lundmark 2018),
practice-based learning (Anderson 2017), expeditionary learn-
ing (Rhodes 2017), mutual learning (Luck 2018), collaborative
learning (Sanoff 2011), and experiential learning (Kraus 2017)
for students, and at the same time develops a product that
exists in reality within the community and is used by it.
As noted by Webber and cited by (Meron and Scharphie
2015), today’s young professionals find such pedagogies inter-
esting as they grew up in a time of climate change, economic
unrest and unparalleled global awareness, leading them to see
socially conscious design not as an idealistic or humanitari-
an goal, but as the third leg of sustainability; environmental,
economic, and social.
Lundmark (2018) notes that even if a PID project fails with
respect to its explicitly stated goals, it may still have posi-
tive secondary outcomes due to the engagement and process
of situated learning among the participants.
3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The study aimed to measure the effectiveness of PID inte-
grated framework in the design studio by combining CDS and
PID. The objectives for the course were to measure the suc-
cess of the PID integrated design studio framework in terms
of learning outcomes. The research questions explored were:
RQ1. Can there be a systematic method of integrating con-
ventional design studio with Public Interest Design in order
to enhance learning outcomes?
RQ2. Does combining conventional design pedagogy and
PID in the design studios make learning more effective?
The methodology involved the development of the frame-
work, conducting the design studio, and evaluating its learning
outcomes. A mixed methods approach involving both quan-
titative and qualitative data was used to find evidence of en-
hanced learning outcomes among students. The samples for
the experiment were 40 students of the second year under-
graduate course of Architecture in Faculty of Architecture &
Ekistics at Jamia Millia Islamia University (a central Univer-
sity of Govt. of India), New Delhi. The project was carried
out within a span of two months in April–May 2017. Students
were divided into 11 groups with 3–4 students in each group.
4 PID INTEGRATED DESIGN STUDIO
FRAMEWORK
The paper discusses the development of PID integrated de-
sign studio framework, case study of the projects undertaken
in the second year design studio, and analysis of the project
outcomes. The intention was to develop an understanding
of community engaged design principles and methods among
students, to support the aspect of social sustainability. The
topics outlined in the framework and the assignments in each
 Saquib/International Journal of Architecture, Engineering and Construction 8 (2019) 32-40
stage are described in (Table 1).
The developed framework has been adapted from a report
on the PID studio conducted at the University of Texas at
Austin (Wilson et al. 2014). The project was a ten-week
program supported by two seminars, one on evaluation and
the other on methods of community engagement. (Bizios and
Wakeford 2016). Based on the four stages mentioned in the
paper, the PID integrated design studio framework was divid-
ed into Project initiation and Community Engagement, De-
sign, Build and Evaluate Table 1. Lectures and assignments
for respective stages were planned accordingly.
4.1 Project Initiation and Community En-
gagement
Introductory phase consisted of setting the project brief, which
included project selection and finalization, performing case
studies for the projects and conducting site analysis. The aim
was to develop sensitivity to issues in the immediate context
among students. Each group identified issues in and around
the campus, which may be addressed through design based
intervention and community engagement. The criteria for se-
lection of projects were to check if the proposed design inter-
ventions are small enough (Bizios and Wakeford 2016) and can
they be materialized within the limited time span; the physi-
cal, social and economic resources available, ease of buildabili-
ty and community engagement possible. Engagement methods
varied with each project, which included performing analysis
of the present context, coordinating with local, use of mul-
timedia documentation techniques, observations, interviews,
and questionnaire based survey.
Table 1. Development of PID studio framework
No. Stages
1 Project initiation and community engagement
2 Design Initial design concept
Post design feedback
Finalizing design to build
3 Build
4 Post occupancy evaluation
34
4.2 Design
Design concepts were developed based on issues identified
through community engagement. Equal weightage was giv-
en to the degree of research that all design projects require,
i.e study of the site, context, program, climate, etc. to estab-
lish a solid foundation for concept and proposal development
(Orlowski 2017), and to those specific to PID. Post design
feedbacks from the community were followed by proto-typing.
4.3 Build
Community Engagement was encouraged during the build-
ing activity. Cost estimates, available physical, social and
economic resources were planned and the design was made
ready to build. Design details along with construction tech-
niques involved were worked out before mobilizing resources
for building activity on site. In certain cases, paid help from
skilled workers such as fabricators, masons, etc. were also
taken for performing specialized activities. The projects were
self-funded by the students and were meant to last for a year.
4.4 Post Occupancy Evaluation
Post occupancy evaluation(POE) was performed to assess the
objectives the project aimed for and the evaluation of the
amount of success achieved. A mixed methods approach was
undertaken which involved utilization of multiple sources of
data (at least three different methods) to ensure validity, re-
duce the bias of one method, and inform differing views of
reality (Moore 2016). Methods adopted for evaluation were:
1. POE feedback from the community through a survey
questionnaire to assess user perception.
Works to do
Identification of two possible projects
Selection of a suitable project
Choosing methods of community engagement
Performing a PID specific case study
Performing a Project specific case study
Performing Site analysis for the project
Collecting Data through engagement methods
Identifying issues to be addressed
Identifying design challenges
Developing a problem statement
Developing Concept Sketches
Developing Drawings
Sharing design proposals with community
Analyzing Post design feedback
Improvising design
Finalizing materials and cost estimate
Learning construction techniques involved
Mobilizing Resource
Planning community engagement
Building project on site
Performing visual documentation of work
Performing questionnaire survey among users
Analyzing data
Measuring success of the project
Final design presentation
 Saquib/International Journal of Architecture, Engineering and Construction 8 (2019) 32-40

2. Student’s feedback through a survey questionnaire to of students in each stage.

assess perceived learning outcomes.
4.4.3 Student’s Final Design Score
3. Analyzing student’s design scores provided by the in-
structors and external examiners. The PID integrated design studio was the last of the three
problems introduced in the session. Student’s internal scores
4.4.1 POE Feedback Form for User marked by their instructors which constituted scores of all
three design projects completed in the class including PID in-
Evidence of the use of POEs in the design studio is rare. One
tegrated design studio and their final exam scores (viva-voce)
reasonable example is the PID studio at the University of
marked by an external examiner were also analyzed to obtain
Texas at Austin (Wilson et al. 2014) following which a POE
quantitative data and assess student’s performance from an
metrics was developed to measure the success of PID projects
instructor’s perspective.
from the user’s perspective and to arrive at standard results.
The questionnaire consisted of two sections. Section 1 consist-
ed of whether the respondent has used the designed project, 5 PROJECTS CASE STUDY
or has at least seen it, or has just (or not even) heard about
it. Responses from “people who just heard about the project” Eleven projects in and around Jamia Millia Islamia (JMI)
were considered weak and filtered out for further analysis. campus were undertaken, with 3–4 students in each project.
Section 2 consisted of POE metrics to evaluate user percep- Eight projects were fully completed by the student’s group,
tion of the built projects. The questionnaire was designed as whereas 3 projects remained partially built due to lack of
short and effective in order to minimize response bias and fa- economic resources and time. A summary of the projects un-
tigue (Hinkin 1995). Since a quality scale comprised of four to dertaken are as described in Table 2.
six items could be developed for most constructs or conceptual
dimensions (Hinkin et al. 1997), the POE metrics consisted 6 ANALYSIS OF DATA
of seven items with closed ended questions based on design
performance criteria (Preiser et al. 2015) discussed in the stu- Descriptive analysis of data was conducted to obtain means,
dio and taken into consideration by the students in each stage. standard deviations, and percentages. The results are be-
These criteria related to visual and contextual concerns; struc- ing discussed accordingly in three varying domains of data
tural stability, usability and comfort, project feasibility and received:
attitude towards PID projects (Verderber 2014). A five point
Likert scale was used for evaluation of the statements in the 6.1 POE Feedback Form for User
questionnaire (Harpe 2015;Leung 2001), and the responses to
the statements were obtained as “Strongly disagree, Disagree, Post occupancy evaluation was taken up after the projects
Can’t say, Agree and Strongly agree” (Bertram 2006). One were completed and were in use. Data was obtained from
item questioning project selection was negatively phrased and people through the developed POE metrics. Sample sizes of
responses were coded in reverse order for analysis (Oppenheim around 40 respondents were targeted for every project.
1996). Out of 439 respondents surveyed for 11 PID studio projects,
and as per information sought in section 1 (Figure 1), 85 re-
4.4.2 PID Feedback Form for Students spondents (19%) had just heard about their project, whose re-
A feedback form was developed to evaluate the student’s atti- sponses were considered weak and eliminated for further anal-
tude towards the effectiveness of PID integrated design studio ysis. Of the data filtered, 353 responses (81%) were analyzed
in their learning. Items were developed to assess student’s further. 246 respondents of the filtered responses (56%) said
attitude with respect to all four stages i.e. project initia- they have used the designed structure whereas 107 respon-
tion/community engagement, design, build and evaluate. dents (24%) said that they have just seen it.
Design parameters studied, and issues faced in studio activ-
ities were considered as indicators for the assessment of learn-
ing outcomes. The items dealt with the questioning of level
of completion achieved in each stage, understanding of design
issues, issues witnessed on site, community engagement, and
learning achieved in each stage. Out of 80 items developed,
63 items were finalized after discussion with three resource
persons. The project initiation stage consisted of 14 items,
design stage 17 items, build stage 25 items and evaluate stage
7 items respectively. A Likert scale was developed for each
item to collect responses on a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being lowest to
5 highest (Harpe 2015). Cronbach’s alpha was calculated to
measure the internal consistency reliability of the instrument.
Figure 1. Number and types of responses (n = 439)
For 63 items, the reliability coefficient (alpha) was 0.91 for
the whole instrument which is strong and acceptable (Taber
2017). Means of Responses obtained were calculated and anal- A project wise description of responses received is shown in
ysis was performed on the data obtained to assess the attitude (Figure 2). Project C recorded the least number of responses

35
 Saquib/International Journal of Architecture, Engineering and Construction 8 (2019) 32-40

Table 2. Description of PID integrated design studio projects

Project brief Design interventions Outcomes
Project A: Parwaz (The Open School), Forest area, JMI
Labor community residing within the Students with the community built The students ran the school them-
campus had young children deprived a school with waste and dumped re- selves and received positive reviews
of education. The project aimed to sources available on site under the from the community.
develop a school for these children. canopy of trees in the campus forest.
Project B: Revitalization of a derelict police check post into Bus Stop, near JMI
The project aimed to revitalize an Through minimum design and build The bus stop is still functional and is
abandoned police check-post on a interventions, the project was able to an asset to its context as compared to
busy roadside into a usable structure provide seating space for people wait- the earlier abandoned one.
that suits the needs of people. ing at the bus stop.
Project C: Street Signage, Central campus, JMI
Central core in the campus had streets A signage was designed and installed The installation received positive re-
spreading out into different areas for one of the street edges springing views for utility but people had varied
making way finding difficult. from the central core. opinions about its design.
Project D: Extended Seating in Canteen. JMI
The project aimed to make aban- With minimum cost and waste re- Space was actively used for some time,
doned side spaces in the outdoors of sources available at hand, such as logs but due to the temporary nature of in-
the faculty canteen habitable and live- of wood, used car tyres, etc. seating terventions, site works slowly degrad-
lier. spaces were developed. ed.
Project E: Low-cost seating prototype Sukhdev Vihar, New Delhi
The park in a housing community A small seating space with material People felt that the intervention was
near campus attracted residents in the resources generated from the commu- much needed, but it should be perma-
evening but lacked seating. nity was developed in the park. nent in character.
Project F*: Rethinking Bamboo Structure, Faculty of Architecture, JMI
An existing bamboo structure erect- The design aimed to improve its ac- Due to cost constraints, there was
ed in a design-build workshop in the cessibility by using stone pavers and lesser physical intervention and par-
backyard of the faculty stood in isola- make interiors more usable and lively tial site work was undertaken.
tion with no defined purpose. by applying roof shades.
Project G: Primary School outdoors, Primary School, JMI
Outdoors of the canteen in the With the help of school students and The intervention helped to create a
backyard of the high school was a their teachers, a vibrant space for positive ambience in the outdoors and
monotonous space with low footfall. seating was designed and executed. more students started it.
Project H: Seating Area with Shades, Roadside, Department of History, JMI
A discarded cubicle structure with a After feedback, the cubicle was paint- A structure earlier invisible enhanced
framework of mild steel cross sections ed, and seating spaces built with aesthetics of the area, though seating
existed on a roadside in the campus. waste products were developed. was temporary in character.
Project J: Shading Device for Prayer Area, Backyard, Faculty of Engineering, JMI
An open area in the campus used for A temporary roof of flex sheets tied The project stimulated the authorities
praying lacked shade, resulting in dis- together was installed to provide enough to transform it into a perma-
comfort especially in summers. shade. nent shade.
Project K*: Pathway for Canteen & Lawn, Girl’s Hostel, JMI
The pathways in the girl’s hostel were A patterned layout of bricks available Due to lack of resources, the pathway
muddy and posed problems in the on site was created to form a pathway. remained partially completed.
rainy season.
Project L*: Renovation of Girl’s Common Room, Department of Architecture, JMI
Girl’s common room in the faculty Based on student’s feedback design in- Due to expensive design interventions
lacked the furniture and accessories terventions were proposed to make its proposed, the project was material-
necessary for the students. interiors more comfortable. ized partially on site.
Note: * Partially built projects

in which out of 40 responses received, 15 were considered weak
and only 25 responses (63%) were considered for analysis.
In section 2 of the questionnaire (Table 3) responses were
recorded for seven items developed in POE metrics. On a
five point Likert scale, responses obtained under the “strong-
ly agree” and “agree” categories were considered positive and
in agreement with the respective statement, while under the
“strongly disagree” and “disagree” categories were considered
as negative responses, and those under “can’t say” category
were considered neutral responses. An overall mean of item-
wise response suggests that 84% of responses were positive
and in agreement with the items questioned, suggesting that
the built projects were received positively by their users. The
standard deviations ranged from 0.07 to 0.26. For every item
indicating agreement in column “A/SA” the standard devia-
tions recorded a variance of CV < 1 which is low and suggests
data concentrated and centered around mean suggesting little
difference of opinion among respondents.
In response to “Item 1” meant to record user perception on
the aspect of visual change, 90% (n = 317) respondents agreed
that the designed and built structure seemed better than ear-
lier. “Item 2” questioned contextual concerns in which 84%

36
 Saquib/International Journal of Architecture, Engineering and Construction 8 (2019) 32-40

Table 3. Item-wise POE feedback (n=353) based on Likert’s scale

No. Item n Mean STDEV
SD/D N A/SA A/SA
1 The developed space now seems 350 19 (5%) 14 (4%) 317 (90%) 0.20
better than what it was earlier
2 It gives a new positive meaning to 348 22 (6%) 28 (8%) 298 (84%) 0.21
the surroundings there
3 It is more useful for the people than 352 5 (1%) 16 (5%) 331 (94%) 0.08
what it was earlier
4 It is more comfortable for the peo- 353 15 (4%) 21 (6%) 317(90%) 0.16
ple than what it was earlier
5 It is strong enough and safe for use 342 25 (7%) 53 (15%) 264 (75%) 0.26
6 A better thing could have been 341 50 (14%) 82 (23%) 209 (59%) 0.23
done at this place
7 Such projects should be taken up 349 8 (2%) 12 (3%) 329 (93%) 0.07
more in future
Note: SD = Strongly Disagree, D = Disagree, N = Neutral, A = Agree, SA = Strongly Agree,
STDEV = Standard deviation.

(n = 298) respondents agreed that the structure gave a pos-
itive meaning to its surroundings. In response to “Item 3”
questioning usability of the project, 94% (n = 331) respon-
dents agreed that the designed and built structure seemed
better than earlier. In “Item 4” questioning the aspect of com-
fort, 90% (n = 317) respondents agreed that the structure is
more comfortable for the people than earlier. In “Item 5” ques-
tioning strength and safety, 75% (n = 264) respondents agreed
that it is strong and safe for use, indicating a lesser degree of
agreement. “Item 6” questioning project selection was nega-
tively phrased, to which 59% (n = 209) were of the view that
a better thing could have been done at the place, while 14%
(n = 50) respondents, which was the highest level of disagree-
ment among given statements, disagreed with the statement
and seemed more content with the design intervention. A low
response rate for “Item 6” also reveals the inconclusiveness in
community feedback.
dents agreed that such projects should be taken up more in
the future.
A project-wise analysis of means of eleven projects reported
that 77% of responses were positive and in agreement with
statements which suggests that the social perspective to de-
sign was received well by the community. Out of eleven PID
projects studied, in eight projects more than 75% of responses
recorded were positive and in agreement with the statements
in the POE metrics. The highest level of agreement recorded
was for “Project B” with 230 responses (89%) in agreement
with the statements. The least level of agreement recorded
was for “Project C” with 91 responses (52%) in agreement
with the statements. Further analysis of means of responses
for built and partially built projects reveals 79% agreement of
the respondents with built projects, and 70% agreement with
partially built projects reflecting that though projects were
partially built, the approach was appreciated by the commu-
nity.

6.2 PID Feedback Form for Students

Figure 2. Project wise distribution of responses
While the feedback provides an indication of the communi-
ty’s interest in a specific project, the last response also suggests
that an architect’s perception is equally relevant in deciding
relevant ideas, rather than those highlighted by the stronger
sections of the community. In response to “Item 7” on attitude
towards public interest design projects, 93% (n = 329) respon-
Responses obtained from each student was recorded and clus-
tered for stage-wise and project-wise analysis. Descriptive
statistics consisted of means and standard deviations of re-
spective items as indications of strength and normal distribu-
tion of responses (Al-Naqbi and Alshannag 2018). The overall
mean of stage-wise items was 4.0 with a standard deviation of
0.9.
In the stage wise analysis, students reported a positive at-
titude towards all stages of the project including the design
stage. The Project Initiation stage (Table 4) recorded a mean
of 4.1 (SD = 0.8), while the Design stage recorded a mean of
3.9 (SD = 1.0). Build and Evaluate stages recorded a mean of
3.7 (SD = 1.1) and 4.1 (SD = 0.8) respectively which suggests
no significant difference in the student’s feedback towards their
attitude in different stages of the project. Results reveal that
in a PID integrated design studio where design is one of the
four stages, 75% understanding was developed in stages other
than design, which relate to social and practical issues. This
fact proves the success of PID integrated design studio frame-
work, and its ability to impart learning of the social aspect of
sustainability among students.

37
 Saquib/International Journal of Architecture, Engineering and Construction 8 (2019) 32-40

Table 4. Descriptive statistics of items for “Project Initiation/ Community Engagement” stage
Descriptive Standard
Aspect Mean
Statistics Deviation
A Project Initiation/ Community Engagement
A1 Level of completion achieved in my PID project in gathering feedback 3.88 1.02
A2 Feedback has helped me to understand design from people’s perspective 4.17 0.54
A3 Feedback has helped me in identifying issues for design problem 4.27 0.54
A4 Identification of issues helped me to arrive at design challenges to be addressed 4.17 0.62
A5 I was able to translate design challenges into design solutions 4.12 0.77
A6 I was able to involve the community while gathering feedback 4.02 1.22
Rating of "Project Initiation" accomplished in PID in order of amount of learning
achieved:
A7 Developing Problem Statement 4.12 0.74
A8 Site study / Analysis 4.29 0.71
A9 Case studies 4.12 0.80
Rate "Community feedback" accomplished in PID in order of amount of learning you
achieved:
A10 Identifying methods of community engagement 4.00 0.88
A11 Developing questionnaire for feedback 3.95 0.82
A12 Gathering feedback from the people 4.10 0.96
A13 Identifying issues from feedback 3.98 0.78
A14 Arriving at design interventions needed 4.39 0.62

Table 5. Project wise means of student’s responses on a scale of 1(lowest) to 5(highest)

Project
Project No. Design Build Evaluate Project mean
initiation
1 Project A 3.8 3.7 3.7 4.2 3.8
2 Project B 4.6 4.5 4.1 4.4 4.4
3 Project C 4.0 3.6 3.4 3.9 3.7
4 Project D 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.2 4.2
5 Project E 4.0 4.1 3.7 4.2 4.0
6 Project F 4.3 4.1 3.9 4.2 4.1
7 Project G 4.0 3.7 3.7 4.0 3.8
8 Project H 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.3 4.4
9 Project J 4.5 4.0 3.6 4.1 4.0
10 Project K 4.5 3.6 3.4 3.4 3.7
11 Project L 4.0 3.5 3.0 4.4 3.7

Project-wise responses of student groups (Table 5) in all by students group in their respective projects revealed that
projects reported a mean of 4.0, which showed that students for eleven projects studied, the mean percentage was 68.0%
were positive and in agreement with the statements concerning for Internal scores and 66.6% for Exam scores. “Project F”
their projects. The analysis also revealed that there were no scored the highest in both internal as well as exam scores,
significant differences in student’s perception in their respec- whereas “Project D” scored lowest and second lowest scores in
tive projects. Out of eleven projects, the mean of responses of Internal and exam scores respectively.
the student groups in six PID inegrated design projects was
equal to or more than 4, while two groups of students recorded
Table 6. Representation of class performance based on stu-
a mean of 3.8, and the remaining three groups a mean of 3.7.
dent’s individual scores
An analysis of student’s respones for built projects reported
a mean of 4.0 and for partially built a mean of 3.9 suggesting Class marks Internal scores (%) Exam scores (%)
positive learning outcomes in both cases. Mean 67.6 66.2
Max 86 83
Min 51 53
6.3 Student’s Final Design Score Range 35 30

Internal scores and exam scores (viva voce) were analyzed for
all 40 students. The mean of percentage of marks obtained
by students in internal scores and exam scores was 67.6% and
66.2% respectively (Table 6). The findings suggest that there
were no significant differences among student’s performance
in their Internal scores and Exam scores. The maximum and
minimum marks also reveal no significant differences in scoring
pattern, suggesting reliability of scores.
Project wise analysis of Internal and Exam scores obtained
7 INTERPRETATION
A mixed methods approach was undertaken to perform anal-
ysis of data (Fraenkel and Wallen 2009). Triangulation of
qualitative data obtained from responses to POE metrics from
the community, PID feedback from students, and quantitative
data obtained from student’s final design score was performed
(Table 7) to measure the success of the projects.

38
 Saquib/International Journal of Architecture, Engineering and Construction 8 (2019) 32-40
Table 7. Comparative analysis for Triangulation of data
Performance
Data type Instrument
scores
Qualitative
PID feedback form 4.0
data
POE feedback (A to SA) 77%
Quantitative
Internal Score 67.6%
data
Exam Score 66.2%
In the qualitative analysis of data, while a mean of 4.0 was
recorded in the PID student’s feedback suggesting agreement
among the students, 77% respondents ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly
agreed’ with the statements provided in the POE form. Re-
sults obtained from both sources of qualitative data point to-
wards the success of the projects conducted from both student
and community perspective.
Analysis of quantitative data revealed a percentage mean
of 67.6% and 66.2% respectively in the student’s internal and
exam scores. While both percentage scores show no signif-
icant difference, they reflect lower scores as compared to a
higher degree of agreement with the qualitative data. The
lower scores may be attributed to the academic perspective
to projects undertaken by the instructor, such as marking on
criteria relating to time schedules, student’s attendance in the
design studio hours, and quality of design submissions done
in class. The scores may not reflect the student’s efforts and
enthusiasm beyond the design studio hours, which was more
evident in this case.
In a stage wise analysis of student’s feedback, a mean of 3.7
was recorded in the build stage. Though the mean was not
significantly different from other respective stages, it was the
lowest. This may be attributed to their inability to fully ma-
terialize their ideas despite their willingness to do so, mostly
due to cost constraints. Even a partially completed project
did help in developing the design capabilities of the students
towards new paradigms. All students reported positive out-
comes for what they learnt, as reflected in their feedback and
POE metrics. The projects succeeded in providing the stu-
dents valuable design lessons of collaboration, hands-on learn-
ing, community engagement, real time issues faced on site,
and design-build to name a few, which they would not have
learnt in a conventional design studio.
A project wise analysis suggests that “Project B” was the
most successful in terms of data obtained from all three
sources, followed by “Project H”. While the mean of internal
and exam scores in “Project B” were 75% and 69% respec-
tively which was the second best among all projects, the POE
metrics reported that 89% of respondents were in agreement
with the statements provided which was the highest recorded
level of agreement. Responses obtained from student’s feed-
back also reported the highest mean score of 4.4 for Project B
and H respectively.
The lowest scores recorded were for Project C, which re-
ported a mean of 67% and 66% respectively for internal and
exam scores, but a lower rate of agreement (52% respondents)
in the POE metrics. Student’s feedback also reported the
lowest mean score of 3.7 for Project C, K, and L respective-
ly. While “Project K” and “Project L” were partially built
projects, which may explain a lower level of motivation in
39
student’s responses, “Project C” was fully completed. Its low
scores in student’s feedback suggest a lower level of motivation
among students as the final product was not through collab-
oration with the community or by themselves, but by fabri-
cators hired for the purpose. The low scores in POE metrics
also reflect a lack of community engagement in the initial pre-
design phase of the project as many respondents felt that even
though the outcome was fine, a better thing could have been
done for the purpose.
It was also seen that projects that scored high in internal
and exam scores did not necessarily perform better in quali-
tative data. One such example is “Project F” which recorded
a mean of 82% and 80% respectively for internal and exam
scores but a lower rate of agreement (63% respondents) in the
POE metrics. This may point towards the fact that students
who perform well in a conventional design studio may not nec-
essarily perform well in an active learning environment, which
poses practical and social challenges and requires a different
skill set. Hence, a PID integrated design studio presents a
holistic framework for the development of a student’s design
skills.
8 CONCLUSION
The research findings suggest that the PID integrated design
studio framework was effective in achieving positive learning
outcomes among students, and was also received positively
by the community. PID integrated design studio proved an
effective pedagogy as it helped the students to understand
and realize design in real-time situations, such as developing a
better idea of spaces and dimensions, understanding practical
design issues of cost, time, labor, etc. It also helped students
to understand design from people’s perspective conforming to
the idea of social sustainability, which was the purpose of re-
search.
While the students and the community reported positive
feedback for both built and partially built projects, the inter-
nal and exam scores reported inferior scores. This fact points
towards the need for new methods of assessment in the design
studio, which is built to identify and reward real success sto-
ries from both community and students. Skills such as collab-
oration, teamwork, decision-making, community engagement
learnt in the project also need to be recorded.
Major issues identified and reported by students were time
and cost constraints. The group size was also an issue, and it
was realized that a larger group of 9–10 students per group,
further divided into sub groups of 3 would be more effective
in terms of increased manual resources for the project. More
than lectures for each stage, hands on experiments need to be
done in the workshop before proceeding for on-site activities.
The mentioned corrective measures will enable an improved
framework for effective design pedagogy and enhanced learn-
ing outcomes.
9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The paper is based on author’s ongoing Ph. D. work at De-
partment of Architecture, Deenbandhu Chottu Ram Univer-
sity of Science and Technology (India) under the supervision
of Professor Chitrarekha Kabre. The author acknowledges all
 Saquib/International Journal of Architecture, Engineering and Construction 8 (2019) 32-40

the teachers of the department for their all-round support and Activist Architecture. 18–22. Detroit Collaborative Design
encouragement. Center, Detroit, USA.
Moore, G. T. (2004). Environment, behaviour and society: A
brief look at the field and some current EBS research at the
REFERENCES University of Sydney. The 6th International Conference of
the Environment-Behavior Research Association, Tianjin,
Abendroth, L. M. and Bell, B. (2016). Public Interest Design
China.
Practice Guidebook SEED Methodology, Case Studies, and
Moore, S. A. (2016). Post-Occupancy: Implementation and
Critical Issues. Routledge, New York, USA.
Evaluation. In L. M. Abendroth & B. Bell (Eds.), Public
Al-Naqbi, A. K. and Alshannag, Q. (2018). The status of
Interest Design Practice Guidebook, 81–92. Routledge, New
education for sustainable development and sustainability
York, USA.
knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors of UAE University
Oppenheim, A. N. (1996). Likert scales. Questionnaire Design,
students. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher
Interviewing and Attitude Measurement, 187–209. CON-
Education, 19(3), 566–588. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-
TINUUM, New York, USA.
06-2017-0091.
Orlowski, E. M. (2017). Tools and Biases. Student Research
Anderson, J. (2017). Introduction. Architecture Connects: As-
and Outreach Methodologies in Public Interest Design Edu-
sociation of Architectural Educators. Oxford, UK.
cation. Architecture Connects: Association of Architectural
Bertram, D. (2006). Likert Scales: CPSC 681–Topic Report.
Educators. Oxford, UK.
Poincare, 1–11.
Preiser, W. F., White, E. and Rabinowitz, H. (2015). Post-
Bizios, G. and Wakeford, K. (2016). On Making and Be-
Occupancy Evaluation (Routledge Revivals). Routledge,
coming a (Citizen) Architect. In M. Kanaani & D. Kopec
New York, USA.
(Eds.), The Routledge Companion for Architecture Design
Rhodes, P. (2017). Ghostlands. Celebrating community in the
and Practice, 469–484, Routledge, New York, USA.
dying towns of America’s Midwest. Architecture Connects:
Etheridge, D. and Wilson, B. B. (2014). Design Futures 2014
Association of Architectural Educators. Oxford, UK.
Yearbook. New Orleans, USA.
Salama, A. M. (2015). Spatial Design Education New Direc-
Feldman, R. M., Palleroni, S., Perkes, D. and Bell, B. (2013).
tions for Pedagogy in Architecture and Beyond. Ashgate
Wisdom from the Field: Public Interest Architecture in
Publishing Limited, Farnham, UK.
Practice. The American Institute of Architects, Washing-
Sanoff, H. (2011). Multiple Views of Participatory Design.
ton, D.C., USA.
8(1), 7. Focus, https://doi.org/10.15368/focus.2011v8n1.1.
Fraenkel, J. R. and Wallen, N. E. (2009). Mixed-Methods
Saquib, M. (2017). Advocating a Social Paradigm in Design:
Studies. How to Design and Evaluate Research in Educa-
Public Interest Design. International Conference on Futur-
tion, 555–586. McGraw-Hill Higher Education, New York,
istic Trends in Architecture, Greater Noida, India.
USA.
Sidawi, B. (2013). Design Studio Education To Foster Cre-
Harpe, S. E. (2015). How to analyze Likert and other rat-
ativity: Influential Factors Revealed by a Case Study of
ing scale data. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learn-
the University of Dammam. International Journal of Ar-
ing, 7(6), 836–850. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CPTL.2015.
chitecture, Engineering and Construction, 2(4), 280–291.
08.001
https://doi.org/10.7492/IJAEC.2013.025.
Heller, C. (2017). Designing a Way to Measure the Impact of
Sidawi, B. (2015). The Tale of Innovation in Two Departments
Design.
of Architecture in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Interna-
Hinkin, T. R. (1995). A Review of Scale Development Prac-
tional Journal of Architecture, Engineering and Construc-
tices in the Study of Organization. Journal of Management,
tion, 3(4), 275–286. https://doi.org/10.7492/ijaec.2014.022.
21(5), 967–988.
Taber, K. S. (2017). The Use of Cronbach’s Alpha When De-
Hinkin, T. R., Tracey, J. B. and Enz, C. A. (1997). Scale
veloping and Reporting Research Instruments in Science
construction: Developing reliable and valid measurement
Education. Research in Science Education, 48(6), 1273–
instruments. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research,
1296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2.
21(1), 100–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/109634809702100
Toker, U., Obispo, S. L. and Toker, Z. (2006). Community
108.
Design in its Pragmatist Age: Increasing Popularity Com-
Kraus, C. (2017). Introduction: Hands on, Minds on: Motiva-
munity Design in its Pragmatist Age: Increasing Popularity
tions of the Designbuild Educator. Designbuild Education,
And Changing Outcomes. METU Journal of the Faculty of
1–16. Routledge, New York, USA.
Architecture, METU JFA 2((23:2)), 155–166.
Leung, W. C. (2001). How to design a questionnaire. BMJ,
Verderber, S. (2014). Territories of educational design-build:
322(Suppl S6), 0106187.
Toward an evidence-based discourse. 2014 ACSA Fall Con-
Luck, R. (2018). Participatory design in architectural prac-
ference Paper Proceedings. Paper presented at Working Out:
tice: Changing practices in future making in uncer-
Thinking While Building, 174-185, New York, USA.
tain times. Design Studies, 59, 139–157. https://doi.org/
Waldrep, L. W. (2016). The Career Paths of an Architect.
10.1016/j.destud.2018.10.003
B. Perkins (Ed.), American Institute of Architects-The Ar-
Lundmark, S. (2018). Design project failures: Outcomes and
chitecture Student’s Handbook of Professional Practice, 56.
gains of participation in design. Design Studies, 59, 77–94.
Wiley, New Jersey, USA.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.DESTUD.2017.07.002.
Wilson, B. B., Coker, C., Gomes, F. and Moore, S. (2014).
Meron, G. and Scharphie, M. (2015). The Context of Commu-
Public Interest Design Summer Program: 2014, University
nity Design Practice. In C. L. Wilkins & D. Pitera (Eds.),
of Texas, Austin, USA.

40