<![CDATA[Structure and construction form part of the technical backbone of any architecture degree, yet students consistently find them one of the hardest areas to engage with — particularly when they are expected to apply structural knowledge at the same time as they are still developing a design project in a parallel studio. This paper reports on a qualitative study conducted in Structure Studio III, a third-semester course at a private university in Bandung, Indonesia, that runs alongside Design Studio III. We collected open-ended questionnaire responses from 117 undergraduate students and 8 studio tutors, then analysed them using thematic analysis supported by frequency counts. Four recurring patterns emerged from the data: inadequate mastery of basic structural concepts (raised by 76.1% of students; confirmed by all tutors), persistent difficulties with technical drawing (70.1%; all tutors), the challenge of running a technical course in parallel with a design studio (63.2%; 87.5% of tutors), and a range of organisational constraints that limit how much learning can actually happen in a session (60.7%; 75% of tutors). Tutor responses also drew attention to something the existing literature has not examined: a significant step-up in demand between Structure Studio II and Structure Studio III that students are not adequately prepared for. Taken together, the findings point not to students lacking aptitude but to a series of structural misalignments in how the curriculum is sequenced and coordinated. We conclude with a proposed framework for staging competency development across the three structure courses and coordinating more deliberately with the design studio.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
