Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This study examines the integration of AI-generated client simulations to address a critical gap in architectural education: the limited exposure to unpredictable, human-centric client dynamics in traditional studio pedagogy. Conducted within the Integrated Design Studio (IDS) at Universitas Islam Indonesia, the research employed ChatGPT to generate randomized client profiles across seven categories for 10 students. Qualitative and quantitative analyses revealed that AI simulations significantly enhanced students’ adaptability, creativity, and critical thinking, compelling them to resolve "cultural-programmatic collisions." While realism in simulating human unpredictability scored moderately, the tool fostered deep contextual engagement, evidenced by students’ score gains in technical integration for resolvable conflicts. However, irreconcilable constraints hindered technical synthesis, underscoring the need for calibrated complexity. The study concludes that AI-generated profiles bridge theoretical pedagogy and real-world practice but require scaffolding to mitigate cognitive overload and augment socio-emotional depth. Recommendations include tiered complexity filters and hybrid models blending AI with live client interactions.
Keywords
Article Details
References
- Avci, A. B., & Beyhan, Ş. G. (2023). A case study on experiential learning in architecture: accessible, climate-responsive, and flexible house designs. EMARA: Indonesian Journal of Architecture, 8(1), 14–21. https://doi.org/10.29080/eija.v8i1.1654
- Demirbilek, N., & Demirbilek, O. (2007). Architectural science and student-centred Learning. Proceedings of ANZASCA2007 41st Annual Conference of the Australia and New Zealand Architectural Science Association, Towards Solutions for a Liveable Future: Progress, Practice, Performance, People , 85–91.
- Dhaouadi, K., & Leclercq, P. (2022). Shaping sustainability in architectural education: The integrated design as a tool. Journal of Design Studio, 4(2), 217–226. https://doi.org/10.46474/jds.1218258
- Hancock, L., Burkett, D., & Smith, K. (2019). The client. In Less Talk More Action: Conscious Shifts in Architectural Education.
- Herfurth, L. (2023). The dynamics of practice and their relevance for the development of an open studio culture in design education. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 22(1), 89–106. https://doi.org/10.1386/adch_00063_1
- K.R. Mangalam University. (2024). Experiential Learning in Architecture and Design. https://Www.Krmangalam.Edu.in/Experiential-Learning-Architecture-and-Design/.
- Manrique, C. M. (2019). Expanding Strategies towards Architectural Design and Building Technology Integration. Open Oregon Educational Resources. (n.d.). (n.d.). 4. Sociocultural theory. In https://openoregon.pressbooks.pub/educationallearningtheories3rd/chapter/chapter-4-sociocultural-theory-2/.
- Pak, B., & De Smet, A. (2022). Experiential Learning in Architectural Education: Design-build and Live Projects (B. Pak & A. De Smet, Eds.). Routledge.
- Pirdavari, M., & Ribeiro, H. C. (2022). Architectural pedagogy within the design studio: A trench between learning and teaching. Proceedings of DARCH 2022, 3rd International Conference on Architecture & Design, 54–67.
- Sara, R. (2004). Between Studio and Street: The Role of the Live Project in Architectural Education.
- Shareef, S. S., & Farivarsadri, G. (2020). An innovative framework for teaching/learning technical courses in architectural education. Sustainability, 12(22), 9514. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229514
- Shareef, S. S., Rauf, H. C., & Ukabi, E. B. (2024). Reconsidering teaching construction in architectural education. Journal of Philology and Educational Sciences, 3(1), 43–57. https://doi.org/10.53898/jpes2024314
- Simpson, M., Burmeister, J., Boykiw, A. , & Zhu, J. (2003). Successful studio-based real-world projects in IT education. . IFAC Symposium on Advances in Control Education.
- Sinclair, B. R., Furlan, R., Al-Mohannadi, A., & Esmaeili, N. (2022, November 9). Design, build, occupy, adapt: Critical considerations of architectural education in an ethos of upheaval. Proceedings - 3rd Valencia International Biennial of Research in Architecture, VIBRArch.
- https://doi.org/10.4995/VIBRArch2022.2022.15223
- Soygeniş, M., Kancıoğlu, M., & Ceylan, S. (2010). Constructivist studio: An approach to architectural design education. In IATED Digital Library. https://library.iated.org/view/SOYGENIS2010CON
- Yildiz, E., Tokgöz, D. Ç., & Kaya, S. (2025). Pedagogical benefits of embedding project-based learning into the architectural curriculum: A case study. Architectural Science Review.
References
Avci, A. B., & Beyhan, Ş. G. (2023). A case study on experiential learning in architecture: accessible, climate-responsive, and flexible house designs. EMARA: Indonesian Journal of Architecture, 8(1), 14–21. https://doi.org/10.29080/eija.v8i1.1654
Demirbilek, N., & Demirbilek, O. (2007). Architectural science and student-centred Learning. Proceedings of ANZASCA2007 41st Annual Conference of the Australia and New Zealand Architectural Science Association, Towards Solutions for a Liveable Future: Progress, Practice, Performance, People , 85–91.
Dhaouadi, K., & Leclercq, P. (2022). Shaping sustainability in architectural education: The integrated design as a tool. Journal of Design Studio, 4(2), 217–226. https://doi.org/10.46474/jds.1218258
Hancock, L., Burkett, D., & Smith, K. (2019). The client. In Less Talk More Action: Conscious Shifts in Architectural Education.
Herfurth, L. (2023). The dynamics of practice and their relevance for the development of an open studio culture in design education. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 22(1), 89–106. https://doi.org/10.1386/adch_00063_1
K.R. Mangalam University. (2024). Experiential Learning in Architecture and Design. https://Www.Krmangalam.Edu.in/Experiential-Learning-Architecture-and-Design/.
Manrique, C. M. (2019). Expanding Strategies towards Architectural Design and Building Technology Integration. Open Oregon Educational Resources. (n.d.). (n.d.). 4. Sociocultural theory. In https://openoregon.pressbooks.pub/educationallearningtheories3rd/chapter/chapter-4-sociocultural-theory-2/.
Pak, B., & De Smet, A. (2022). Experiential Learning in Architectural Education: Design-build and Live Projects (B. Pak & A. De Smet, Eds.). Routledge.
Pirdavari, M., & Ribeiro, H. C. (2022). Architectural pedagogy within the design studio: A trench between learning and teaching. Proceedings of DARCH 2022, 3rd International Conference on Architecture & Design, 54–67.
Sara, R. (2004). Between Studio and Street: The Role of the Live Project in Architectural Education.
Shareef, S. S., & Farivarsadri, G. (2020). An innovative framework for teaching/learning technical courses in architectural education. Sustainability, 12(22), 9514. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229514
Shareef, S. S., Rauf, H. C., & Ukabi, E. B. (2024). Reconsidering teaching construction in architectural education. Journal of Philology and Educational Sciences, 3(1), 43–57. https://doi.org/10.53898/jpes2024314
Simpson, M., Burmeister, J., Boykiw, A. , & Zhu, J. (2003). Successful studio-based real-world projects in IT education. . IFAC Symposium on Advances in Control Education.
Sinclair, B. R., Furlan, R., Al-Mohannadi, A., & Esmaeili, N. (2022, November 9). Design, build, occupy, adapt: Critical considerations of architectural education in an ethos of upheaval. Proceedings - 3rd Valencia International Biennial of Research in Architecture, VIBRArch.
https://doi.org/10.4995/VIBRArch2022.2022.15223
Soygeniş, M., Kancıoğlu, M., & Ceylan, S. (2010). Constructivist studio: An approach to architectural design education. In IATED Digital Library. https://library.iated.org/view/SOYGENIS2010CON
Yildiz, E., Tokgöz, D. Ç., & Kaya, S. (2025). Pedagogical benefits of embedding project-based learning into the architectural curriculum: A case study. Architectural Science Review.