From rigidity to flexibility: reforming urban planning studio pedagogies in developing nations

Engineering notes

Key topics: autonomous driving, perception, planning. See the paper for implementation details and experimental results.

Chinese explanation / 中文解读

中文解读待补充：本站会优先为端到端自动驾驶、BEV感知、3D目标检测、轨迹预测、路径规划、LiDAR感知等高价值论文补充中文说明。

Original abstract

Abstract This exploratory study examines how experienced Iranian urban planning educators perceive the alignment of selected studio-based learning models with key pedagogical values. The central research question is how do Iranian planning educators prioritize different pedagogical values and rank various studio models, and what contextual factors influence these preferences? The study utilized a convergent mixed-methods design. The fuzzy analytic hierarchy process was employed to quantify the priorities of 14 expert educators regarding six pedagogical values and their evaluation of six different studio models. This quantitative data was complemented by a thematic analysis of the educators’ narrative responses to understand the reasoning behind their judgments. The findings indicate a strong preference for hybrid/blended studios, which ranked highest, while traditional workshops and charrettes scored the lowest. The thematic analysis revealed seven key themes, including the importance of flexibility, contextualization, digital formats, equity, and the significant barriers posed by institutional rigidity. The results suggest that blended, practice-oriented, and reflective teaching approaches are perceived to deepen learning. The study concludes that there is a clear demand among Iranian educators for a shift from rigid, traditional teaching formats to more flexible, blended, and student-centered studio models. While there is a strong consensus on the value of models that foster engagement and real-world applicability, their adoption is hindered by systemic constraints. The study contributes a structured account of educators’ reform priorities in a centralized and resource-constrained planning education system. Its findings should be interpreted as expert perceptions and a basis for further inquiry, not as direct evidence of student learning, classroom practice, or national representativeness.

Links and sources

• PDF from original source

Comments