Insight into a Personalized Procedure of Design in Concept Generation by the Students in Architecture Thesis Projects

Abstract

This paper analyses the predominant trend between the students to follow, frame, and develop a concept in the architectural thesis design. The research targets to question how the students derive their inspiration from diverse sources and influencers into the architectural design concept. The research methodology was based on semi-structured questionnaires with Likert scale questions to analyse and interpret data through the Chi-Square test in SPSS software. The findings revealed that first, the students preferred to employ more symbolic and poetic elements for the design than real projects, second, to create their concepts under influences of supervisors and juries than research, third, to follow personal procedure than the structured process of the course. In conclusion, the results revealed that the students adopted a personal procedure under the influences of the supervisors to design a concept that is closely aligned with a subjective approach, rather than a structured research process.

Keywords

• Concept Generation
• Personal Procedure
• Research Process
• Students
• Supervisors
• Architecture Thesis Design Studio

References

1. Alerby, E. (2000). A Way of Visualising Children’s and Young People’s Thoughts about the Environment: a study of drawings. Environmental Education Research, 6(3), 205-222.
2. Anderson, N. M. (2014). Public Interest Design as Praxis. Journal of Architectural Education, 68(1),16-27. doi:10.1080/10464883.2014.864896
3. Bakare, T. V. (2012). Effect of seating arrangement on methodology in adult education classes in Lagos, Nigeria: implication for knowledge creation and capacity building. Journal of Educational Review, 5(3), 307-314.
4. Borden, I., & Ray, K. R. (2006). The Dissertation: An Architecture Student’s Handbook. (Second, Ed.) New York: Architectural Press, Elsevier.
5. Carey, S. (2000). The Origin of Concepts. Journal of Cognition and Development, 1, 37-41.
6. Ching, F. D. (1996). Architecture, Form, Space, Order. New York: Architectural Press.
7. Ching, F. D. (2015). Architectural Graphic (6 ed.). New York: Willy.
8. Cho, J. Y., & Lee, E.-H. (2014). Reducing Confusion about Grounded Theory and Qualitative Content Analysis: Similarities and Differences. The Qualitative Report 2014 Volume 19, Article 64, 1-20, 64, 1-20.

9. Cikis , S., & Ek, F. I. (2010). Conceptualization by Visual and Verbal Representations: An Experience in an Architectural Design Studio. The Design Journal, 13(3), 329–354. doi:10.2752/146069210X12766130824975
10. Crowe, N., & Laseau, P. (2011). Visual Notes for Architects and Designers (2 ed.). New York: John & Sons Publisher.
11. D’Souza, N. (2007). Design Intelligences: A Case for Multiple Intelligences in Architectural Design. International Journal of Architectural Research, 1(2), 15-43.
12. De Campos, C. I., Pitombo, C. S., Delhomme, P., & Quintanilha, J. A. (2020). Comparative Analysis of Data Reduction Techniques for Questionnaire Validation Using Self- reported Driver Behaviors. Journal of Safety Research, 73, 133-142.
13. DoF. (2014). Architecture Program Specification. Kigali : the University of Rwanda .
14. Dutton, T. A. (1991). Voices in architectural education: Cultural politics and pedagogy. New York, London: Bergin and Garvey.
15. Elo, S., Kääriäinen, M., Kanste, O., Pölkki, T., Utriainen, K., & Kyngäs, H. (2014). Qualitative Content Analysis: A Focus on Trustworthiness. SAGE Open, 2(1), 1-10.
16. Ezzy, D. (2002). Qualitative Analysis: Practice and Innovation. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
17. Frankfort-Nachmias, C., Nachmias, D., & DeWaard, J. (2014). Research Methods in the Social Sciences (8 ed.). New York: SAGE Publisher Ink.
18. Frayling, C. (1993). Research in Art and Design. Royal College of Art Research Paper, 1(1), 1-5.
19. Galle, P. (1999). Design as intentional action: A conceptual analysis. Design Studies, 20(1), 63–64.
20. Gardner, H., Kleiner, F., & Mamiya, C. J. (2004). Art through the Ages (17 ed.). Wadsworth Publishing.
21. 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
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. Groat, L., & Wang, D. (2002). Architectural Research Methods. New York: John Wiley & Sons INC.
25. Hartley, J. (2014). Some Thoughts on Likerttype Scales. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology , 14(1), 83-86.
26. Hemyari, C., Zomorodian, K., Ahrari, I., Tavana, S., Parva, M., Pakshir, K., . . . Sahraian,. (2013). The mutual impact of personality traits on seating preference and educational achievement. European Journal of Psychological Education, 28, 863–877.
27. Huertas-Delgado, F. J., Garcia, M. J., Van Dyck, D., & Chillon, P. (2019). A Questionnaire to Assess Parental perception ofBarriers towards Active Commuting to School (PABACS): Reliability and validity. Journal of Transport and Health, 12, 97-104.
28. Joshi, A., Kale, S., Chandel, S., & Pal, D. K. (2015). Likert Scale: Explored and Explained. British Journal of Applied Science & Technology, 7(4), 396-403.
29. Krippendorff, K. H. (2003). Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology (2nd edition ed.). New York: Sage Publications, Inc.
30. Lang, J. (1987). Creating Architectural Theory: The Role of the Behavioral Sciences in Environmental Design. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
31. Laseau, P. (2001). Graphic Thinking for Architects and Designers (3th ed.). New York: Wiley.
32. Lawson, B. (2004). What Designers Know. Oxford: Architectural Press.
33. Lawson, B. (2005). How Designers Think: The Design Process Demystified (4 ed.). Oxford:Oxford Press.
34. Lee, S. W. (2005). Encyclopedia of school psychology. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
35. Li, Q. (2013). A Novel Likert Scale Based on Fuzzy sets Theory. Expert System with Application , 40(5), 1906-1618.
36. Madanipour, A. (1996). Design of Urban Space: an inquiry into a socio-spatial processes. London: Willy.
37. 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 Issue, 9-24.
38. Mauch, J., & Park, N. (2003). Guide to the Successful Thesis and Dissertation: A Handbook for Students and Faculty. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.
39. Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative Content Analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research,1(2).
40. Moretti, F., Van Vliet, F., Bensing,, L., Deledda, J., Mazzi, G., Rimondini, M., . . .Fletcher, I. (2011). A standardized approach to qualitative content analysis of focus group discussions from different countries. Patient Education and Counseling, 82(3), 420-428.
41. Mugerauer, R. (1995). Interpreting Environments: Tradition, Deconstruction, Hermeneutics. Texas: University of Texas.
42. Mugerauer, R. (2014). Interpreting Nature: the Emerging Field of Environmental Hermeneutics. Robert: Fordham University Press.
43. Neuman, W. L. (2006). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. London: Pearson Education, Ink, Fifth Edition.
44. Nichols, S., & Stich, S. P. (2003). Mindreading: an integrated account of pretence, selfawareness, and understanding other minds. London: Oxford University Press.
45. Niezabitowska, E. D. (2018). Research Methods and Techniques in Architecture (1st Edition ed.). New York: Routledge.
46. Palmer, E. R. (1969). Hermeneutics: Interpretation Theory in Schleiermacher, Dilthey, Heidegger, and Gadamer. Northwestern University Press .
47. RIBA. (2014). Architects and research-based knowledge: A literature review. London: Royal Institute of British Architects.
48. Sarkar, P., & Chakrabarti, A. (2011). Assessing design creativity. Des Stud, 32, 348–383. Silverman, D. (2004). Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice. New York: SAGE Publications Ltd.
49. Simone, A. (2004). People as Infrastructure: Intersecting Fragments in Johannesburg. Public Culture , 16(3), 407–429.
50. Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. (1999). The concept of creativity: prospects and paradigms. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 3-15). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
51. Tafahomi, R., & Nadi, R. (2016). Dehistoricisation the Urban Landscape through Transition of the Enclosure Ratio in Urban Fabric of Gonabad City in Iran. J Archit Eng Tech, Volume 5(Issue 2). doi:10.4172/2168-9717.1000162
52. 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
53. Taura, T., & Nagai, Y. (2013). Concept Generation for Design Creativity (Vol. 8). London: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1
54. Ullman, D. G. (1994). The Mechanical Design Process. Boston: McGraw Hill.
55. UR, t. U. (2017). Guideline on the Project-based Learning Approach. Kigali: the University of Rwanda.
56. Van Bakel, A. P. (1995). Styles of architectural designing: empirical research on working styles and personality dispositions. Eindhoven: Technische Universiteit Eindhoven. doi:10.6100/IR437596
57. Vargas-Hernandez, N., Shar, J. J., & Smith, S. M. (2010). Understanding design ideation mechanisms through multilevel aligned empirical studies. Des Stud, 31, 382–410. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2010.04.001
58. Weisberg, R. W. (1993). Creativity: beyond the myth of genius. New York: WH Freeman and Co.
59. 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.
60. 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.