An Attempt to Fill the Gap between the Architectural Studies and Conceptualization in Architectural Thesis Design Studio

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to evaluate the application of a theoretical framework in the architecture thesis project to discover the effectiveness of the exercise on the thesis projects. It was common to observe that the students prepared the architectural thesis project with limited, unstructured, or disconnected studies to analysis, programming, and conceptualization. A theoretical framework model was tested to evaluate the effects on the learning outcomes. The methodology of the research was designed based on structured observation and content analysis. The findings of the research reveal that the students perceive and understand the studies and the theoretical framework differently. The students demonstrated their theoretical framework with four categorical specifications including information, application, presentation, and communication. The information referred to data and structure of the organization, the application implied the relation between the data and other phases of the thesis project, the presentation illustrated how they applied graphical tools to illustrate the data, and communication revealed the interaction between the students and the panel of juries and participants. In conclusion, the theoretical framework opens a new door for the discussion of the architectural studies and lessons learnt between the panel of juries, the students, and peers students. For an effective expectation from the theoretical framework outputs, detailed guidelines could harmonize the students’ outputs and due to the verities of the application, interpretation, and demonstration of the architectural theoretical frameworks.

Keywords

• Architecture Thesis
• Theoretical Framework
• Information
• Application
• Presentation
• Communication

References

1. APA, A. (2006). Planning and urban design standards. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons Inc
2. Attoe, W. O. (1979). Theory, criticism, and history of architecture. In A. Snyder, & A. J. Catanese (Eds.), Introduction to Architecture (pp. 21-45). New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
3. Bae, S., Bhalodia, A., & Runyan, R. C. (2019). Theoretical frameworks in interior design literature between 2006 and 2016 and the implication for evidence-based design. The Design Journal, 22(5), 627-648.
4. Bloomberg, L. D., & Volpe, M. (2019). Completing your qualitative dissertation: a road map from beginning to end. Los Angeles: SAGE.
5. 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.
6. Borden, I., & Ray, K. R. (2006). The dissertation: An architecture student’s handbook. (Second, Ed.) New York: Architectural Press, Elsevier.
7. Boults, E., & Sullivan, C. (2010). Illustrated history of landscape Design. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
8. Brown, R., & Renshaw, P. (2006). Positioning students as actors and authors: A chronotopic analysis of collaborative learning activities. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 13(3), 247-259. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327884mca1303_6

9. Bryman, A. (1988). Quantity and quality in social research. London: Routledge .
10. Cambridge. (2021). Cambridge dictionary online. Cambridge: Cambridge. Retrieved from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/framework
11. Carmona, M. (2001). Housing design quality: through policy, guidance and review. London: Spon Press.
12. Charmaz, K., Thornberg, R., & Keane, E. (2018). Evolving grounded theory and social justice inquiry. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln, The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (pp. 720-776). London: SAGE.
13. Ching, F. D. (1996). Architecture, form, space, order. New York: Architectural Press.
14. Ching, F. D. (2010). Design drawing (2th ed.). New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
15. Ching, F. D. (2015). Architectural graphic (6 ed.). New York: Willy.
16. Clark, R. H., & Pause, M. (1996). Precedents in architecture. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
17. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education. New York: Routledge.
18. Collins. (2021, March 8). collinsdictionary.com . Retrieved from framework: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/framework
19. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, D. J. (2018). Research design, qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. London: SAGE Publications, Inc.
20. Crowe, N., & Laseau, P. (2011). Visual notes for architects and designers (2 ed.). Wiley.
21. DoF. (2014). Architecture program specification. Kigali: the University of Rwanda.
22. Drexler, A. (1975). The architecture of the Ecole des Beaux Arts. New York: The Museum of Modern Art.
23. Foddy, W. (2001). Constructing questions for interviews and questionnaires: theory and practice in social research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24. Frankfort-Nachmias, C., Nachmias, D., & DeWaard, J. (2014). Research methods in the social sciences (8 ed.). New York: SAGE Publisher Ink.
25. Frayling, C. (1993). Research in art and design. Royal College of Art Research Paper, 1(1), 1-5.
26. Frey, B. B. (2018). The SAGE encyclopedia of educational research, measurement, and evaluation. New York: SAGE.
27. Ghonim, M., & Eweda, N. (2019). Instructors' perspectives on the pedagogy of architectural graduation projects: A qualitative study. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 8, 415–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2019.01.007
28. Groat, L., & Wang, D. (2002). Architectural research methods. New York: John Wiley & Sons INC.
29. Jencks, C. (2002). The new paradigm in architecture: The language of postmodernism. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press.
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. Lang, J. (2005). Urban design: A typology of procedures and products. London: Architectural Press.
33. Laroche, D. (2008). The relationship between the Beaux-Arts school and the French school at Athens. 100 years with Danish architect at l’École française d’Athènes, Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens. 13, pp. 11-17. Athens: Danish Institute at Athens.
34. Laseau, P. (2000). Graphic thinking for architects and designers (3th ed.). New York: Wiley.
35. Lawson, B. (2004). What designers know. Oxford: Architectural Press.
36. Lawson, B. (2005). How designers think: The design process demystified (4 ed.). Oxford: Oxford Press.
37. Littmann, W. (2000). Assault on the Ecole: Student campaigns against the Beaux Arts, 1925–1950. Journal of Architectural Education, 53(3), 159–166.
38. Longman. (2020). Longman Collocations Dictionary and Thesaurus. Longman .
39. 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.
40. Mauch, J. E., & Park, N. (2003). Guide to successful thesis and dissertation: a handbook for students and faculty. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.
41. McClean, D., & Hourigan, N. (2013). Critical dialogue in architecture studio: Peer interaction and feedback. Journal for Education in the Built Environment, 8(1), 35-57. https://doi.org/10.11120/jebe.2013.00004
42. McConnell, K. D., & Doolittle, P. E. (2012). Classroom-Level Assessment: Aligning Pedagogical Practices to Enhance Student Learning. In C. Secolsky, & B. D. Denison, Handbook on measurement, assessment, and evaluation in higher education (pp. 15-30). Routledge.
43. Mindrup, M. (2014). Translations of material to technology in Bauhaus architecture. Wolkenkuckucksheim Internationale Zeitschrift zur Theorie der Architektur, 19(33), 161-172. Retrieved from cloud-cuckoo.net/fileadmin/issues_en/issue_33/article_mindrup.pdf
44. Mugerauer, R. (1995). Interpreting environments: Tradition, deconstruction, hermeneutics. Texas: University of Texas.
45. Mugerauer, R. (2014). Interpreting nature: the emerging field of environmentalhermeneutics. Robert: Fordham University Press.
46. Neufert, E. (2012). Architects' Data . Oxford : Blackwell.
47. Neuman, L. W. (2006). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. New York: Pearson Education.
48. Niezabitowska, E. D. (2018). Research methods and techniques in architecture. New York: Routledge.
49. Ots, E. (2010). Decoding theory speak: An illustrated guide to architectural theory. Routledge.
50. Oxford. (2021). Oxford dictionary online. Oxford: Oxford. Retrieved from https://www.google.com/search?q=meaning+of+framework&rlz=1C1CYCW_enRW831RW831&oq=meaning+of+framework&aqs=chrome.69i57j0l9.10955j1j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
51. 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.
52. Silverman, D. (2004). Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice. New York: SAGE Publications Ltd.
53. Silverman, D. (2010). Doing qualitative research. New York: SAGE Publisher.
54. 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.
55. Tafahomi, R. (2020). Educational outcome of students’ group-table arrangement for collaboration in architecturalthesis studio. LWATI: A Journal of Contemporary Research, 17(2), 22-46.
56. 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. https://doi.org/10.46474/jds.910234
57. Tafahomi, R. (2021b). Learning activities of the of students in peer-jury practices in the architecture design studio. AKSARA: Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan Nonformal,, 7(3), 795-814. https://doi.org/10.37905/aksara.7.3.795-814.
58. Tafahomi, R. (2021c). Effects of the wall-faced seating arrangement strategy on the behavioural patterns of the students in the architecture thesis design studio. Asian Journal of Assessment in Teaching and Learning, 11(1), 85-97. https://doi.org/10.37134/ajatel.vol11.1.8.2021
59. Tafahomi, R. (2021d, February). Application of physical and nonphysical elements in the conservation of historic core of city. South African Journal of Geomatics, 10(1), 75-86. https://doi.org/10.4314/sajg.v10i1.6
60. Tafahomi, R. (2021e). 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. https://doi.org/10.37134/ejoss.vol7.2.6.2021
61. 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. https://doi.org/10.11113/ijbes.v7.n1.407
62. Till, J. (2008). Three myths and one model. Building Material, 17, 4-10. Retrieved from https://jeremytill.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/post/attachment/34/2007_Three_Myths_and_One_Model.pdf
63. Unwin, S. (2014). Analysing architecture (4 ed.). New York: Routledge.
64. White, E. T. (1975). Concept sourcebook: a vocabulary architectural forms. Tucson: Architectural Media Ltd.
65. White, E. T. (1983). Site analysis: Diagramming information for architectural design. Tallahassee, Florida: Architectural Media Ltd.
66. Williams, K. (2018). Planning your dissertation. London: Red Globe Press.