Developing a Design Framework to Methodize the Architecture Thesis Projects with Emphasis on Programming and Conceptualization Processes

Abstract

This research advocates a design framework as an analytical tool for programming-conceptualization in architecture education in design studios. The architecture thesis students apply for programs and conceptual design in different ways a significant part of them prefer to use precedent projects. Although architecture thesis projects are contracted on the studies, methods, and analysis, the relationships between the programming-conceptualization and the rest of the thesis project were observed so weakly. To cover this gap a design framework was designed to link the architecture findings and the design objective and strategies. The methodology of the research was designed based on the qualitative method with the application of structured observation, content and graphical analysis. The data of the research was combined from the drawing boards of the thesis students in the final exam. The findings of the research identified that the design framework links the architecture problem to the architectural design decision for the appropriate programming and conceptualization. However, the students apply the design framework in different ways to adapt it to their own personal understanding of programming-conceptualization. In conclusion, the design framework is a tool to use in design studios to create alternatives for the programming-conceptualization activities by the students. The application of a design framework could create a logical process for the students to develop the thesis project based on systematic inquiries, activities, and outputs.

Keywords

• Architecture
• Studio
• Thesis
• Design framework
• Progarmming-conceptualization

References

1. AIA, A. (2009). AIA Document B202™–2009. New York: AIA.
2. Bakel, V. A. (1995). Styles of architectural designing: empirical research on working styles and personality dispositions. Eindhoven: Technische Universiteit Eindhoven. doi:10.6100/IR437596
3. Bonnes, M., & Bonaiuto, M. (2002). Environmental psychology: From spatial-physical environment to sustainable development. In R. B. Bechtel, & A. Churchman (Eds.), Handbook of environment psychology (pp. 28-54). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
4. Boradkar, P. (2010). Design as problem solving. In R. Frodeman, The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinary (pp. 273–287). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
5. Borden, I., & Ray, K. R. (2006). The dissertation: An architecture student’s handbook. (Second, Ed.) New York: Architectural Press, Elsevier.
6. Ching, F. D. (2010). Design drawing (2th ed.). New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
7. Ching, F. D. (2015). Architectural graphic (6 ed.). New York: Willy.
8. Cross, N. (2005). Engineering design methods: Strategies for product design. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

9. Crowe, N., & Laseau, P. (2011). Visual notes for architects and designers (2 ed.). Wiley.
10. DoA. (2012). Architecture program specification. Kigali: Department of Architecture, The University of Rwanda.
11. Dorst, K. (2006). Design Problems and Design Paradoxes. Design Issues, 22(3), 4-17. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/25224059
12. Draper, J. (1977). The Ecole des Beaux-Arts and the architectural profession in the United States: The case of John Galen Howard. In S. Kostof, The architect (pp. 209–238). New York: Oxford University Press.
13. Drexler, A. (1975). The architecture of the Ecole des Beaux Arts. New York: The Museum of Modern Art.
14. Drisko, J. W., & Maschi, T. (2016). Content analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
15. Duerk, D. P. (1993). Architectural programming: Information management for design. New York: Wiley.
16. FAED, F. (2009). Program specification of architecture. Kigali: The University of Rwanda.
17. Franz, J. M. (1994). A critical framework for methodological research in architecture. Design Studies, 15(4), 433-447.
18. Frayling, C. (1993). Research in art and design. Royal College of Art Research Paper, 1(1), 1-5.
19. Garric, J.‐P. (2017). The French Beaux‐Arts. In M. Bressani, & C. Contandriopoulos, The companions to the history of architecture, volume III, nineteenth century architecture, part I: Historicism, the Beaux‐Arts, and the Gothic (pp. 1-15). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
20. Ghonim, M., & Eweda, N. (2019). Instructors' perspectives on the pedagogy of architectural graduation projects: A qualitative study. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 8, 415–427. doi:10.1016/j.foar.2019.01.007
21. Gokyer, E. (2013). Understanding landscape structure using Landscape metrics. Advances in Landscape Architecture, 663-676. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/55758
22. Goldman, A. I. (2006). Simulating of Minds: the philosophy, Psychology, and Neuroscience of Mindreading. New York: Oxford University Press.
23. Goldschmidt, G. (2004). Design representation: Private process, public image. In G. Goldschmidt, & W. L. Porter (Eds.), Design Representation (pp. 203–217). London: Springer.
24. Gomez, A. P. (2003). Hermeneutics as architectural discourse. Singapore: Department of Architecture, National University of Singapore.
25. Griffin, A. (2022). The rise of academic architectural education: The origins and enduring influence of the Acadâemie d’architecture. New York: Routledge.
26. Groat, L., & Wang, D. (2002). Architectural research methods. New York: John Wiley & Sons INC.
27. Gropius, W. G. (1970). Scope of total architecture (4 ed.). New York: Collier.
28. Hancock, J. (1995). The interpretive turn: Radical hermeneutics and the work of architecture. ACSA Annual Meeting History Theory Criticism, (pp. 183-188). New York.
29. Hershberger, R. (1999). Architectural programming and predesign manager. New York: McGraw-Hill.
30. Krippendorff, K. H. (2003). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2 ed.). New York: Sage Publications.
31. Lang, J. (1987). Creating architectural theory: The role of the behavioral sciences in environmental design. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
32. Laseau, P. (2000). Graphic thinking for architects and designers (3 ed.). New York: Wiley.
33. Lawson, B. (2005). How designers think: The design process demystified (4 ed.). Oxford: Oxford Press.
34. Littmann, W. (2000). Assault on the Ecole: Student campaigns against the Beaux Arts, 1925–1950. Journal of Architectural Education, 53(3), 159–166.
35. Madanovic, M. (2018). Persisting Beaux-Arts Practices in architectural education: History and theory teaching at the Auckland school of architecture, 1927–1969. Interstices Auckland School Centenary Special Issues, 9-24.
36. Marttila, T. (2018). Platform of co-creation: Learning interprofessional design practice in creative sustainability. Espoo, Finland: Aalto University.
37. Mugerauer, R. (1995). Interpreting environments: Tradition, deconstruction, hermeneutics. Texas: University of Texas.
38. Nichols, S., & Stich, S. P. (2003). Mindreading: an integrated account of pretence, self-awareness, and understanding other minds. London: Oxford University Press.
39. Niezabitowska, E. D. (2018). Research methods and techniques in architecture. New York: Routledge.
40. Norberg-Schulz, C. (2019). Genius loci: Towards a phenomenology of architecture (1979)., 8, 31. In Historic Cities: Issues in Urban Conservation (pp. 2-31). Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute.
41. Pahl, G., Beitz, W., Feldhusen, J., & Grote, K.-H. (2007). Engineering design: A systematic approach. London: Springer-Verlag.
42. Pena, W. M., & Parshall, S. A. (2012). Problem seeking : an architectural programming primer. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
43. Phillips, D. (1990). Subjectivity and objectivity: An objective inquiry. In E. W. Eisner, & A. Peshkin, Qualitative inquiry in education: The continuing debate (pp. 19-37). New York: Teachers College Press.
44. Popper, K. (1977). The logic of the social sciences. In T. W. Adorno, The positivist dispute in German sociology (pp. 78-104). London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd.
45. Proudfoot, P. R. (2000). Structuralism, phenomenology and hermeneutics in architectural education. International Journal of Architectural Theory, 2, 1-17.
46. Regis, R. (2003). Sketchbook: Piazza di Spagna, Rome. In D. Watson, A. Plattus, & R. Shibley, Time saver standards for urban design (pp. 441-448). New York: Mc Grow Hill.
47. RIBA. (2014). Architects and research-based knowledge: A literature review. London: Royal Institute of British Architects.
48. Salkind, N. J. (2008). Encyclopaedia of educational psychology. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
49. Schon, D. A. (1984). The architectural studio as an exemplar of education for reflection-in-action. Journal of Architecture Education, 38, 2-9.
50. Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
51. Seamon, D. (2015). Hermeneutics and architecture: Buildings-in-themselves and interpretive trustworthiness. In B. Janz, Hermeneutics, Space, and Place (pp. 1-13). Springer.
52. Simon, H. A. (1973). The structure of ill structured problem. Artificial Intelligence, 4, 131-210.
53. Sperlregen, P. D. (2003). Making a visual survey. In D. Watson, A. Plattus, & R. Shibley, Time saver standards for urban design (pp. 431-440). New York: Mc Grow Hill.
54. Tafahomi, R. (2021a). Insight into a personalized procedure of design in concept generation by the students in architecture thesis projects. Journal of Design Studio, 3(1), 5-18. doi:10.46474/jds.910234
55. Tafahomi, R. (2021b). An attempt to fill the gap between the architectural studies and conceptualization in architectural thesis design studio. Journal of Design Studio, 3(2), 175-190. doi:10.46474/jds.1012778
56. Tafahomi, R. (2021c). Learning activities of the students in peer-jury practices in the architecture design studio. AKSARA: Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan Nonformal, 7(3), 795-814. doi:10.37905/aksara.7.3.795-814
57. Tafahomi, R. (2021d). The behavioral patterns of the student in the position of peer-jury in landscape design studio. EDUCATUM – Journal of Social Science, 7(2), 57-65. doi:10.37134/ejoss.vol7.2.6.2021
58. Tafahomi, R. (2022a). Insight into research dilemma in design studios and relationships with the architecture curriculum. Journal of Design Studio, 4(1), 93-112. doi:10.46474/jds.1102633
59. Tafahomi, R. (2022b). Revitalization of cultural values in urban landscape through street tress design. METU JAF, 39(1), 215-236. doi:10.4305/METU.JFA.2022.1.10
60. Tafahomi, R., & Nadi, R. (2020). Derivation of a design solution for the conservation of a historical Payab in the redevelopment of Doloeei, Gonabad. International Journal of Built Environment and Sustainability, 7(1), 1-9. doi:10.11113/ijbes.v7.n1.407
61. Tafahomi, R., & Nadi, R. (2021a). Protection of natural wetlands through landscape design in Kigali city. Rwanda Journal of Engineering, Science, Technology and Environment, 4(1), 1-16. doi:10.4314/rjeste.v4i1.11
62. Tafahomi, R., & Nadi, R. (2021b). The transformative characteristics of public spaces in unplanned settlements. A|Z ITU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 18(2), 285-300. doi:10.5505/itujfa.2021.14892
63. Tafahomi, R., & Nadi, R. (2021c). The interpretation of graphical features applied to mapping SWOT by the architecture students in the design studio. Journal of Design Studio, 3(2), 205-221. doi:10.46474/jds.1019310
64. Taura, T., & Nagai, Y. (2013). Concept generation for design creativity (Vol. 8). London: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1
65. Ullman, D. G. (1994). The mechanical design process. Boston: McGraw Hill.
66. White, E. T. (1975). Concept sourcebook: a vocabulary architectural forms. Tucson: Architectural Media Ltd.
67. White, E. T. (1983). Site analysis: Diagramming information for architectural design. Tallahassee, Florida: Architectural Media Ltd.
68. Xi, L., Yuan, Z., YunQui, B., & Chiang, F.-K. (2017). An investigation of university students’ classroom seating choices. Journal of Learning Spaces, 6(3), 13-22.
69. Yang, Z., Becerik-Gerber, B., & Mino, L. (2013). A study on student perceptions of higher education classrooms: Impact of classroom attributes on student satisfaction and performance. Building & Environment, 70(15), 171-188.