Exploring the impact of the direct experience of architecture precedents: a study of master student teams.
Saved in:
| Title: | Exploring the impact of the direct experience of architecture precedents: a study of master student teams. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Ashrafganjouei, Mohammadali1 m_aganjouei@uk.ac.ir, Nadimi, Hamid2 |
| Source: | International Journal of Technology & Design Education. Nov2024, Vol. 34 Issue 5, p1931-1953. 23p. |
| Subjects: | Design students, Engineering design education, Artificial intelligence, School children, Teaching methods, British education system |
| Abstract: | Design teams often rely on precedents, but the impact of using the direct experience of a precedent on design behavior requires further investigation. To explore this impact, fifteen teams of master students of architecture participated in two design sessions: one without and the other with a previous experience of visiting an example. The think-aloud protocol was applied, and a multi-layer coding based on FBS and precedent types was proposed to measure episodic (a specific design experience) and semantic (general design principles) precedents. Furthermore, a measurement was proposed to examine how and when the teams analyzed the precedents or applied them to solve the problem. Dynamic analyses were used to study the differences between the two conditions based on the distribution of precedents and the Problem-Solution index. Statistical analysis unfolded significant differences between the two conditions. In the second design session, the number of precedents, solution generations, and analyzing precedents were significantly increased. The first design session's episodic precedent had categorical similarity with both semantic and episodic precedents of the second design session. The results also indicated that design teams preferred to analyze the visiting experience of the precedent at the outset of the design session and apply other precedents for solving the design problem until the end of the session. While in the second design session, solution generation significantly increased, more episodic precedents related to the direct experience were used for problem framing. From another perspective, these precedents were also applied more to generate design concepts rather than refining design ideations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of International Journal of Technology & Design Education is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Engineering Source |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Design teams often rely on precedents, but the impact of using the direct experience of a precedent on design behavior requires further investigation. To explore this impact, fifteen teams of master students of architecture participated in two design sessions: one without and the other with a previous experience of visiting an example. The think-aloud protocol was applied, and a multi-layer coding based on FBS and precedent types was proposed to measure episodic (a specific design experience) and semantic (general design principles) precedents. Furthermore, a measurement was proposed to examine how and when the teams analyzed the precedents or applied them to solve the problem. Dynamic analyses were used to study the differences between the two conditions based on the distribution of precedents and the Problem-Solution index. Statistical analysis unfolded significant differences between the two conditions. In the second design session, the number of precedents, solution generations, and analyzing precedents were significantly increased. The first design session's episodic precedent had categorical similarity with both semantic and episodic precedents of the second design session. The results also indicated that design teams preferred to analyze the visiting experience of the precedent at the outset of the design session and apply other precedents for solving the design problem until the end of the session. While in the second design session, solution generation significantly increased, more episodic precedents related to the direct experience were used for problem framing. From another perspective, these precedents were also applied more to generate design concepts rather than refining design ideations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 09577572 |
| DOI: | 10.1007/s10798-024-09884-8 |
