Comparative studies

The gap

Evidence profile

Stated in the future work and limitations sections of the source papers, classified as general, spanning 2 journals.

Supporting evidence — 3 representative gaps

• Factors influencing teacher's perception and acceptance of generative AI in architecture education—a cross-sectional study (2026) · Frontiers in Education · doi

  instruments The study has several limitations: First, due to the lack of established measurement instruments in the field of architecture education, the study employed self-designed to measure all study variables in a way that reflects the specific nature of architecture education. Future studies can utilize these instruments to assess key variables in courses or fields like architecture education to enhance test–retest reliability and the replicability of study findings. Second, the study employed a selfreported questionnaire to assess teachers’ perceptions of the current state of GAI in architecture education. However, the practical impact of GAI on transforming learning and teaching styles in architecture education remains underexplored. Future research can employ an experimental research design to explore the practical impact of integrating GAI into architecture education on teaching styles and experiences. Third, the study employed a cross-sectional research design to capture teachers’ perceptions of the current state of GAI in architecture education. Future studies can employ a longitudinal research design to explore the impact of ongoing advancements in GAI on both learning and teaching styles in architecture education. Fourth, the study focused on the views of teachers’ perceptions and did not consider administrative staff who support the integration of GAI, strategic leaders who decide its integration, and other groups involved in the integration process. Furthermore, differences in the use and application of GAI across Middle Eastern countries remain underexplored from the perspectives of different stakeholders. Future studies can adopt a comparative research design to evaluate the perceptions of other stakeholders and provide a better understanding of how different parties collaborate in integrating innovative and required technologies in architecture education. Fifth, the study employed a quantitative research design to explore teachers’ perceptions of the underlying topic.

  generalstated in future workevidence 5/5
  Keywords: architecture education future perceptions design employed teachers instruments impact teaching styles explore integration self variables
• Teaching technical knowledge in architectural education: a framework for designing and reflecting on teaching activities (2026) · Frontiers in Education · doi

  comparative studies, but the lack of a consistent structure for Taken together, standards and comparison. Furthermore, none of these approaches focuses on the underlying organisation of topics, problems, and learning sequences—a problem for understanding how the complex information is decomposed to support learning. is particularly significant that 2.2 Analysing a pedagogical exemplar The study by Vrontissi et al. (2018) is a comprehensive example that provides a clear overview of the topics taught, a sequential breakdown of content delivery and exercises, and an analysis of student outcomes with respect to the content. This level of detail allows the structure of the learning process to be examined more closely, helping to address some of the issues identified in the previous sections transform concept; hence, Vrontissi et al. (2018) adopt a pedagogical approach that emphasises conceptual structural design thinking in architectural education. They state, “the objective is to eventually shift the focus from the actual formal composition of the material construct to the conceptual relational disposition of the inherent structural to structural organisation to a spatial one” (Vrontissi et al., 2018, 9). They achieve this goal by structuring their teaching activity in three distinct steps, which can be summarised as: (1) exploring structural principles, (2) translating the structural principles into an architectural idea, and (3) materialising the architectural idea.

  generalstated in limitationsevidence 5/5
  Keywords: structural learning vrontissi architectural structure organisation topics pedagogical content conceptual principles idea comparative lack consistent
• Implicit and explicit aspects of design learning: unveiling the hidden curriculum (2026) · International Journal of Technology and Design Education · doi

  This study is a case study conducted within the architecture department of a specific univer- sity, focusing on the development of a hidden curriculum framework and offering new per- spectives. Therefore, the findings are limited to this particular context and do not produce universal results. On the other hand, it proposes a method for analyzing hidden curriculum in architecture education, which is a field that often remains unexamined. Nevertheless, it is expected that employing a larger sample in future research or expanding the scope to include various contexts across multiple universities and countries will generate more com- prehensive contributions to this field. Furthermore, this study examines the hidden curriculum through the lenses of institu- tional discourse, instructor perspective, and student outcomes. While student outcomes are evaluated in this study, cognitive processes and students' perceptions of the hidden cur- riculum are outside its scope. This limitation constrains the evaluation of findings from the students’ perspective. Future studies that incorporate student perspectives will enable a deeper understanding of the hidden curriculum. In this regard, valuable data can be gained by conducting semi-structured interviews with students and utilizing reflective design dia- ries. Additionally, voice-recording and analyzing the feedback sessions during the design studio process will provide new insights into the hidden curriculum from both student and instructor perspectives and will also allow for comparative analysis. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 0 7 / s 1 0 7 9 8 - 0 2 6 - 1 0 1 0 2 - w . Acknowledgements We would like to thank all professors for being so kind to interview and to the CoLab Team (Dr. Gaizka Altuna Charterina, Mirza Vranjakovic, Andreas Woyke, Anna-Sophie Hartung, Karolina Rysava, Katerina Tzouvala) for their support throughout this research. Funding No funding was received for conducting this study.

  generalstated in limitationsevidence 5/5
  Keywords: hidden curriculum student students architecture analyzing field future scope instructor perspective outcomes perspectives conducting design

Questions about this gap