Architectural Design Students' Explorations Through Conceptual

View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE

provided by DSpace@IZTECH Institutional Repository

The Design Journal VOLUME 16, ISSUE 1 REPRINTS AVAILABLE PHOTOCOPYING © BLOOMSBURY PP 103–124 DIRECTLY FROM THE PERMITTED BY PUBLISHING PLC 2013 PUBLISHERS LICENSE ONLY PRINTED IN THE UK

Architectural Design Students’ Explorations through Conceptual Diagrams

Fehmi Dogan Assistant Professor of Architecture, Izmir Institute of Technology, Izmir, Turkey

ABSTRACT Views of creativity highlight the importance of incubation or the significance of sketching as a means of seeing emergent properties. Both views put design students at a disadvantage. This study investigates the strengths and weaknesses of an alternative approach to design education, in which students were asked to develop a

design idea through conceptual diagrams. DOI: 10.2752/175630613X13328375149002 This study investigates how conceptual diagrams might help architectural students to see the relationships between concepts and space and coordinate their dual development through conceptual diagrams.

The study presents the development of The Design Journal the ideas of 13 second-year architectural students. Students’ logbooks, together with their midterm and final review presentations, 103

104 The Design Journal Fehmi Dogan Introduction diagrams KEYWORDS: designeducation,conceptualdesign, design process. design process andstay focusedthroughout the education approach helped studentsstartthe The findingsshowedthatthisparticulardesign introduced changesduring thedesignprocess. instrumental inspatialorganization,andhowthey any conceptualdiagrams,whethertheywere were studiedtodetermine whetherstudentsdrew to learn about the process of design as much create a design design a create much as design of process the about learn to are lookingforinthesketches. ice students at a disadvantage because they do not know what they nov- put may generation idea for sketching on reliance exclusive an however,process; creative the in sketches. useful be to these shown are Sketches in properties emergent of hope unexpected the with discovering constantly, sketch to encouraged are students which in methods teaching to provide could productivea alternative diagrams conceptual using approach structured a that proposed is It 2002). Zimring and Dogan 2010; Nersessian, and Dogan 2003; (Dogan, simultaneously schemes spatial and ideas abstract about think designers these help that tools representational are diagrams conceptual that shown have processes design architects’ expert of Studies configuration. spatial its through conceptualization design the structureof the highlights which and conceptualization design a as a visual/spatial configuration which is representative of the core of defined is diagram conceptual a study this In diagrams. conceptual tured that design exploration might be structured through the use of their conjec- also and space between architectural and concepts design abstract relationships about think students help potentially could diagrams conceptual that conjectured is It design. of phase facilitated through a series of related tasks assigned during the initial be might development concept and generation concept quireshow second year level undergraduate architectural design course and in- respondence betweenanabstractideaandaspatialarrangement. stumbling upon an idea or they establish a quick and superficial cor idea to spatial arrangements. Often students sketch with the hope of this relate and concept design abstract an formulate to struggle the is design of phase initial the during students architectural novice for + A pedagogical challenge of design education is to get students get to is education design of challenge pedagogical A a in students of processes design the investigates study This ceptually and spatially challenging tasks and require a difficulties the of One two. require the of exploration coordinatedand tasks challenging spatially and con ceptually both impose often situations design Architectural - - generic conceptualization ofasolution. modifications might trigger corresponding changes in the designer’s such and modified easily are models, mental to linked are that tions representa external as diagrams, These 2003). (Dogan, spatial schemes generic to ideas abstract relate students help might tions, representa- spatial intrinsically are they because diagrams, ceptual con- that proposed is it Here, 2002). Zimring, and (Dogan process Kahn’s design in significant are representations diagrammatic their and concepts design that show also will reading a such yet, gests, sug- he as straightforward, and linear never was design to concept from designs critical his of A progression the that 1961). show will Kahn of (Kahn, reading ‘design’ to ‘form’ from proceeds design how Kahn’sof I. description Louis in found be may process design concept-driven a of illustration An process. design the during vated moti- and committed stay students help will process design driven concept- a that belief the from comes approach pedagogical This 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. were asfollows: tasks design preliminary These diagrams. conceptual design using tasks, preliminary related but distinct of assignment structured the more through relatively was ideas those developing and ideas design abstract constructing of process the which in studio design paper reports the results of a study in a second-year undergraduate fromrelatively moreenvironments. structurededucationThis design by Goldschmidt, it is suggested here that students could also benefit the reported as sketches, through recognizing discovery serendipitous of possibility and suggests, Schön as reflection, dialectic and coaching constant have to need students that Accepting impasse. the his breaks that idea scribbles original an upon stumbles repeatedly thus and process signature design the of beginning the at Goldschmidt (1994) presents a case in which a student who is stuck sketches. as such representations external of medium the and through student, the and instructor design the between dialectic conversation a through occurs thinking which in place a as vironment en studio design the characterized 1987) (1984, Schön product. tate conceptual change and generate breakthroughs in the the in breakthroughs generate design process. and change conceptual tate facili- to diagram(s), conceptual the of variations the Manipulate but different, related, spatialschemes. in materialized be could concept design generic a how see to order in concept, design the on variations Create current design task. the to transferred be might precedents the of aspects some how analyse and concept design the for precedents Find tual diagram(s). concep- of form the in graphically Representconcept design the Formulate agenericdesignconcept. Architectural DesignStudents’Explorationsthrough ConceptualDiagrams - -

105 The Design Journal

106 The Design Journal Fehmi Dogan of design, during which designers construct a better understanding better a construct designers which during design, of ac stages early the architects’ of significance expert the indicate on studies These doubt counts. cast design of stages early the that designteachingisanalmost impossibletask. (Dogan, 2003). Moreover, a black-box view of design would suggest working and requirethinking may intense design of stages initial the that shown have Stirling, and Libeskind Kahn, as such architects, Corbusier Le 1978; Hoffmann, (see questionable is design of stages early the in processes design their of Corbusier’saccounts Le Wright’s and of accuracy the that Even though 1991). incubation may have (Boden, some positive role in creativity,implementation of we know period a by followed and incubation of period a by to preceded is moment according creative the creativity which of characterization particular a with ment paper (LeCorbusieretal.1981;Pfeiffer andWright, 1990). onto ideas their translating start then and box black a in information collecting if as situation design the of first understanding they full a that acquire suggest design, on writings their in design and their processes of accounts own their in architects, These auto matically. and suddenly emerges idea design the which of end the at incubation of period a Lloyd as phase Frank initial the and described have Corbusier Wright, Le as such architects, expert Some Initial PhasesofDesign ences. Thus, manipulation of conceptual diagrams could trigger trigger could mental simulationsthatmightleadtoinnovation. diagrams conceptual of manipulation infer Thus, for ences. inspected and simulated be literally can model physical the that is model mental a to correspondence with model physical a of significance The representations. mental structured of models physical be to considered (1989) Greeno what are diagrams such, As model. mental a to correspond representationsthat external are diagrams whereas representations internal are models mental that maintain models notes but domains represented their to correspondences mental structural that claims also Johnson-Laird feature. diagrams and their target domains is in structure and not in any other the same. According to Johnson-Laird the correspondence between remains domains two the of structure the wherein domain, target a to correspondence a of terms representationsin diagrammatic ized a character (2002) Johnson-Laird 2008). simulating (Nersessian, model mental involves often innovation conceptual that Nersessian’s and argument 1989), (Greeno, models mental in changes ing correspond provoke can models physical manipulating that posal Greeno’s2002), pro- (Johnson-Laird, models mental and diagrams between in relation the concerning Johnson-Laird’scomponents, insight to relation spatial as well as conceptual with model mental Some studies that have focused on designers’ behaviours in in behaviours designers’ on focused have that studies Some agree - in be to seem Corbusier Le and Wright of accounts The Dogan (2003) proposes that expert designers have a structured a have designers expert that proposes (2003) Dogan , 1981). Other studies of expert of studies Other 1981). al, et - - - - - disadvantage. a at them puts it exclusively sketching on rely students if that here sentations do not include some or any of these. Thus it is suggested repre mental students’ whereas knowledge, domain and heuristics precedents, with enriched are that situations design of sentations repre mental construct designers expert that suggested is it Here representations. knowledge structured such have not do novices whereas structure, knowledge principle-oriented a is which schema ics problems, invoke expert an physics problem-solvers appropriate Chi (1981). colleagues her and Chi by suggested as representations, mental their of structure the in differences of because students to compared designers expert for straightforward more relatively is This paper. the on marks the tended consequences one has to be able to continuously reinterpret unin the of value the To appreciate consequences. the of ognition rec is process this in task cognitive crucial The surprise. of sense a by accompanied be to appears discovery changes, sudden and changes incremental both For through shift. Gestalt a towards incrementally moves local evolves design that idea the is Schön and Goldschmidt to Common paper. on marks and thoughts between interaction dialectic the in sketches of have importance 1992) the highlighted Wiggins and (Schön colleagues Schön’s and 1992), (1987, Schön 1997), 1994, (1991, Goldschmidt ideas. their explore ing is proposed can through as medium students the which primary but othersmightnot. ideas useful upon stumble might students some sketching through these characterize and design efforts as an of almost-blind search in a vast terrain. This suggests that phases early the in efforts ing view of design, these studies highlight the designers’ intense sketch- and properties black-box the fromDifferent ideas. unexpected into emergent them formulate see designers which through medium main the proposedas is sketching studies these process.In design the in early sketching of effort intense an in involved are designers simultaneously. evolve problem-structuring and solution problem which in process Co-evolutionary views of design (Dorst and Cross, 2001; Gross Gross 2001; Cross, al et and (Dorst design of views Co-evolutionary Scott,1994). and (Lloyd solution a with begin task design particular on a in experience with designers that or 1979) (Lawson, focusing first solutions by problem-solving begin designers that suggesting provide1994) accounts, designers’ expert the of some for evidence Scott, and Lloyd 1979; (Lawson, studies Some phase. structuring problem- the sug after only (1992) starts Pirolli design in and problem-solving Goel that gest design. of phases initial in framing’ ‘problem calls he what of importance the highlighted perspective, the of The literature on sketching is replete with cases in which sketch which in cases with replete is sketching on literature The that suggested is it above, to referred studies the of some In , 1987; Maher and Tang, 2003; Suwa Suwa 2003; Tang, and Maher 1987; , design situation. Schön (1984, 1988) from a constructivist constructivist a from 1988) (1984, Schön situation. design et al et Architectural DesignStudents’Explorationsthrough ConceptualDiagrams found that, when solving phys solving when that, found et al et , 2000) suggest a suggest 2000) , ------

107 The Design Journal

108 The Design Journal Fehmi Dogan Drawings and notes from the logbooks and from the reviews were reviews the from and logbooks the from notes and Drawings process. the in moments particular at achieved been had the that level illustrated materials presentation the while processes, design provided a body of material of what the students were thinking about logbooks The models. and drawings included which presentations, final and midterm students’ the documented instructors studio the and process, design own their of perspectives students’ the vided they how and organization, prologbooks process.- The design their during introducedchanges spatial in them used and diagrams conceptual drew students if determine to studied were sentations, integration, toguidestudents’thinkingaboutthedesigntask. theme, design particular introduceda and building the roleof public road and a city park in Izmir, Turkey. The design task emphasized the The site of the project was located between the remains of a Roman project. the complete to months oral two given werean and centre history design to asked were students course this In instructors. by review final one and reviews midterm state two during the works of their of documentation and logbooks design their on based year architectural design students given an architectural design task, second- 13 of ideas design the of evolution the presents study The Study together with the diagrammatic reasoning literature, suggest that that diagrams couldbeusefulforstudentsaswell. suggest literature, reasoning diagrammatic the with together studies, these of results The drawings. detailed final and concepts initial representationsbetween intermediary are diagrams that gests sug- (1990) Ervin designers. by used extensively are diagrams that teristics of existing buildings. Do’s work (Do and Gross 2001) shows works suggest that diagrams help analyse the structure and charac- design the structure they problem into sub-components. Clayton’sbecause (2000) and Oxman’shelpful (1997) are diagrams (1964), Alexander to According process. design the in diagrams of benefits Gattis andHolyoak,1996;GobertClement,1999). complexity of conceptual domains (Bauer and Johnson-Laird, 1993; domain (Shimojima, 2001; Stenning and Lemon, target 2001) and thus simplify the their of structure the represent directly sentations, repre of kinds other from different representations, diagrammatic a only not is serendipitous process ofdiscovery.design that evidence provide and designers novice for outcomes task design improve process, design the throughout more structured exploration might improve student/teacher dialogue This discoveries. unexpected facilitate to sketches of use coupled the be with might diagrams Such diagrams. conceptual as such fosteredrepresentation,of throughtypes ambiguous less of use the Student logbooks, together with midterm and final review pre review final and midterm with together logbooks, Student In design studies literature some studies on diagrams highlight the that shown has reasoning diagrammatic of area the in Research This study inquires whether students’ creative processes could be - -

had beenfacilitated. shifts these how and process design the during shifts conceptual were examined to determine whether there had been any significant generic from ideas to specificproceeded design schemes. Finally,students the logbookshow and drawings out find to analysed were in diagrammatic representations. Subsequently, schematic variations wereideas these whether determine to expressedand ideas design students’ the of underpinnings conceptual the identify to analysed nificance assigned to particular features of the design situation might meaningful sig individual and personally response individual an that express which idea concepts the with possible, as openly as related of series a think to encouraged was student each stage initial this In construct concepts. to analogies used often had dents and ingroups. individually both teachers, studio students with concepts discussed were initial formulated The built. be to going was building this whom for and Kahn) I. Louis expressedby (as be’ to wants building the ‘what problem about werethe think students to definition asked reinterpret them Tohelp building. the within important functions and activities the identify to able were students analysis programme Through site. the of features natural and functional physical, social, the with familiar became students analysis site Through pretation. gen reinterproblem and analysis programme analysis, site were eration concept facilitate to used tasks of Specific issues. three considerations these on based evaluated were concepts Proposed the Izmir Bay, and surrounded by a diversity of functions and people. of archaeologicalview and commanding remains,park a urban with be to were which housed within the centre. Finally,activities the site was on a research slope between an and social programme the architectural emphasized The site. the and building the between and people among both history integration, of cultural theme the sharing introduced and and documenting of role the highlighted the to definition, architecturalprogramme problemdesign The site. the and definition problem design encouraged the were issues: main three students about think concept design a developing In How thestudentsgenerateddesignideas standing, i.e.madebreakthroughs. under conceptual their shifted students how and whether (5) schemes; and spatial specific into ideas design their converted dents stu how (4) process; design the in had diagrams what these (3) functions diagrammatically; expressed were ideas these how and whether (2) idea; design a generated students the how investi (1) were gated: processes design students’ the of points main Five Students’ DesignProcesses Upon examining students’ first ideas it became evident that stu- that evident became it ideas first students’ examining Upon Architectural DesignStudents’Explorationsthrough ConceptualDiagrams ------

109 The Design Journal

110 The Design Journal Fehmi Dogan instances of‘path’. diagrams showinggeneric Student A’s conceptual Figure 1 village teahouse village domains were established by the students themselves, and more more and themselves, students the by established were domains source the study this In examples. sourceremote pick to prompted to available students before the design process;were therefore, novice students were analogies, domain between examples, and within domain both source for the study Casakin’s in that is ference dif One analogies. domain remote accessing in designers novice and designers expert between difference no found study, (2004) this Casakin of findings the to and Johnson-Laird to Contrary gies. analo- within-domain used students more why explain could which Laird (1989) claimed that profound analogies are harder to establish, Johnson- remoterelationshipsdomains. with analogical established students Fewer domain. architectural the to limited were they i.e. of lightinthebuilding. use expressive the and light on focused other the while occupants gested that the building should foster unintended experiences for its sug One experiences. spatial occupants’ the to related concepts design students’ Two (park). bottom of the to top road) the (Roman from site going the views shifting as such issues, site specific on focus a example, for conceptions, idea non-analogical offered interactive relationship between included analogies abstract More or building or types building as such structures familiar from ranged analogies Students’ sign. own analogical inferences,their viadiagrammaticexpressions. of reciprocals spatial provide to encouraged then were thus become the basis for devising a spatial configuration. Students Most of the students’ analogies were within-domain analogies, analogies, within-domain were analogies students’ the of Most de the begin to analogies offered nine students, the of all Of types of analogies included analogies of types structure , , street market street home to abstract entities such as as such entities abstract to and and memory memory and . history Other students , history to witness home as the source domains. domains. source the as path, and an and history history bridge, . The The . city, - - - to represent their concepts diagrammatically. The main purpose purpose main The diagrammatically. concepts their represent to Following the formulation of design concepts students were required design concepts Diagrammatic expressions ofstudents’initial were students elaborated to further study their conceptual and the spatial implications. by provided analogies discussions group and individual During togetherness. and cosiness of feeling a and scale, of sense certain a with together contact, social and publicness of For instance, the village teahouse analogy brings with it the concepts situation. particular a about characteristics spatial and ideas is related it Here difficult. more is groupof offereda analogies students it own their often that observed stages later the in whereas conceptual the phase, called also design, of stages early the in easier is Casakin (2006) found that for design students the use of metaphors generation. idea in analogies used primarily study this in students design students, For situations often present unfamiliar territories, which may explain why 1987). Lakoff, 1983; (Gentner, situation iar unfamil an to situation familiar a of attributes the project to ability could transfer spatialfeatures totheirdesignsituation. they which from examples architectural preferred students One of the primary strengths of metaphors and analogies is the is analogies and metaphors of strengths primary the of One Architectural DesignStudents’Explorationsthrough ConceptualDiagrams

- conceptual diagrams. Student B’s initial Figure 2

111 The Design Journal

112 The Design Journal conceptual diagrams. Student D’s initial Figure 4 diagrams. conceptual andsection Student C’s initial Figure 3 Fehmi Dogan sidered are studied in detail. The diagrams that are shown here here shown are that diagrams The detail. in studied are sidered spatial. However, lessoftentheyalsoreferred toanabstractidea. suggested a spatial organization, because diagrams themselves are diagrams these often, Most diagrams. section and diagrams zoning diagrams, circulationrelationships, adjacency and functional ploring ex diagrams bubble of as such repeatedly,types drew other students diagrams however, were, There ideas. repre design of generic were sentations diagrams these of Some thinking. spatial to generation idea from transition the facilitate thus and configurations spatial generic into ideas abstract their translate to students for was Here, a few examples of students’ diagrams from the many con- many fromthe diagrams students’ of examples few Here,a - -

Architectural DesignStudents’Explorationsthrough ConceptualDiagrams conceptual diagrams. Student E’s initial Figure 5 conceptual diagrams. Student F’s initial Figure 6

113 The Design Journal

114 The Design Journal Fehmi Dogan final onesfrom hisportfolio. conceptual diagramsand Student G’s initial Figure 7 concentric circles into section diagrams through which he explored he which through diagrams section into circles concentric to closed. semi-open, In his subsequent diagrams, Student to C translated his idea of open, from graduating spaces, of succession a spaces which were transparent. In the spatial scheme he introduced concentric as memory of layers the showed that analogy spatial a sketched also He (Figure3). individual an form which memory sonal per of relatedlayers he the which to rings permeable concentric, of tween memory and personal identity. He drew a diagram in the form and theindividualprogramme components. building. The building. called she space a in originating programme,architectural the of spaces individual and surroundings the between relationships introduced 2). she diagram subsequent a (Figure In surroundings its and close building a the with between concerned connection was student the diagrams the of one In relationshipsceptualized its and building the between plorations. Student B drew a series of diagrams with which she con- with problem design generic spatialschemes. the of conceptualization his aligns diagram the A Student For diagrams. his by representedare both and B, to A from trajectory a i.e. scheme, spatial a and journey, a an i.e. both event, evoked analogy The path. the of shape the to according change would trajectory this how about thought and building, the journey, thought about the trajectory of a visitor through the site and buildings (Figure 1). In generic these diagrams this student different conceptualized history as a through going paths instances including several path, drew of He path. the domain, source his of tions Student A started with process. a design the in commitment design a demonstrate clearly Student C was concerned with the analogical relationship be relationship analogical the with concerned was C Student Other students formulated new ideas through diagrammatic ex- diagrammatic through ideas new formulated students Other heart of the building had a direct link with the outside the with link direct a had building the of path analogy and drew generic representa - heart , denoting the centre of the the of centre the denoting , surroundings. - -

a spatial source domain, such as as such domain, source spatial a and place theminseparatezones. chunks two into programme building the divide to employed student the which division spatial a suggested duality This vidual. indi the and society between relationship bidirectional a showed diagram This particular process. design One the in 7). instrumental became (Figure diagram him to meaningful were that concepts related but different between relationships map to diagrams used site. its and building the between relationship the establish help to tools (Figure 6). Student E and Student F both used diagrams as analytical park the to road the from transition easy an provide to building the use to aimed and park city the to road Roman the from descends one as view changing on focused F Student 5). (Figure occupants the building circulation, while creating unintended experiences for its E branching and slope Student the along building factors. the layering about thought environmental other and condition graphical (Student C), idea had no direct spatial connotations, such as initial wherethe instances morestraightforward.In was diagrams to by connectingtheparkandRomanroad. of series flowing spaces insidea the building and continuityimagined outside the building he response In area. the in problems as city the of rest the from isolation and life commercial of lack dead-ends, segregation, identified and 4) (Figure neighbourhoods surrounding spatial scheme. tion of a seemingly abstract and evocative idea into a corresponding transla- the facilitated diagrams of use student, other.this each For how spaces of the architectural programme could wrap and enclose into spatial schemes. Second, students’ diagrams often serve as as serve often diagrams students’ Second, translated schemes. be spatial then into can concepts such how understand to also may begin Students process. design the in used be can concepts abstract how of understanding an acquire may students diagrams as such representations mediating of use the through First, many. are diagrams conceptual draw to students asking for reasons The expressions? What werefunctionsofthesediagrammatic the students’diagramsofthisstudyworkedinasimilarway. problems non-spatial could be simplified through spatial representations.complex It is possible that that showed (1996) Holyoak and Gattis domains. conceptual complex about think and study plore, ex- students helped it Second, schemes. spatial generic formulate students helped it First, ways. two in functioned diagramming D), In those instances where students’ initial ideas relate directly to directly relate ideas initial students’ where instances those In He ideas. different between relationships explored G Student A small group of students derived design ideas from the topo the from ideas design derived students of group small A the of fabric urban the analysed diagrammatically D Student social and individual (Student G) or Architectural DesignStudents’Explorationsthrough ConceptualDiagrams path (Student A), the translation translation the A), (Student segregation (Student memory memory and identity - -

115 The Design Journal

116 The Design Journal scheme. studying adifferent generic Student A’s diagrams Figure 8 Fehmi Dogan the design situation. One such example is illustrated by the design the by illustrated is example such One situation. design the Some actually modified the originaldiagrams. diagrams to break an impasse in conceptual original their to back went usually students of thedesignproblem. requirements emerging to according modified necessary,be if and, re-evaluated be should concept design the ones, specific more to sign space. As a design proceeds from more general considerations de- the into introducedare or emerge issues design concepts new whenever initial their re-evaluate to asked be might students lem, prob - Tothis situation. avoid design the of dimensions different the about think to opportunity and time enough students giving without rushed, is design of phase conceptual initial the if true particularly be would This ideas. other comparing and evaluating an before to idea fixation early the was concept design clear a formulating to diagrams bringafocustothedesignexploration. Similarly concern’. of focus ‘a establishes designer the this through and situation design a of aspects certain privilege metaphors that proposed (1994) colleagues his and Coyne process. design the in helped students stay committed to a design idea without getting lost diagrams generic the instances these In design. the of development neric schemes further in response to requirements for more detailed initial generic abstractions. Often students did develop their initial ge- different through schemes variations and fully generic explore the spatial alternatives suggested by their those of the follow to implications failed spatial but schemes, spatial simplified not and tions cant conceptual and spatial breakthroughs for the novice designers. signifi- to lead may level generic a at diagrams manipulating Third, ideas. design to commitments of time, in decisions of documents During this study, when problems arose during the design process relating experienced study this of students the that difficulty One abstrac- weregeneric diagrams their realizedthat students Most case theaddition ofanopenpublicspacealong thepath. the diagram introduced a new spatial element to the scheme, in this of manipulation which in study this in examples few the of one is it Furthermore, topography. case this in parameter, design new a to good illustration of how an initial concept may be revised in response and a path through the building (Figure 8). The case of Student A is a angles between the bars he could create both an open public space the changed he if that discovered so, doing in and, angles different ingly. In a series of diagrams he studied how the two bars could have that the parallel bars could follow the topography and curve accord- realized He setting. its into scheme his adopting when topography the consider not did student the addition, In diagrams. generic his Spatially,them. of variety and richness the carry not did scheme the quickly translated this idea into two parallel bars with a path between process of Student A, who started with the idea of a path. Student A Architectural DesignStudents’Explorationsthrough ConceptualDiagrams her initialdiagrams. Student B’s manipulationof Figure 9

117 The Design Journal

118 The Design Journal Fehmi Dogan (1979) suggests that students should start with a solution, how precedents. relevant of knowledge solution, sufficient have not a do ever,they with start should students view that Lawson’s suggests education. (1979) their of years initial the in have not do often students which skills, appropriateanalytical the with equipped (1992) suggests that before beginning a design designers should be each of which highlights difficulties for students. Goel and Pirolli’s view significant with regards to some different characterizations of design, is This idea. initial their change to had they when even process sign sequent phases of design. Students had no problem starting the de- sub- through it with proceeded and idea design a formulated study way students conduct their design explorations. Each student in the the to relates diagrams conceptual with working of benefit first The From concepttospace Benefits ofworkingwithconceptualdiagrams: helped thisstudentconfigure aricherspatialsolution. manipulations Diagrammatic scheme. generic new a to back and evolved from a generic scheme to a relatively more detailed scheme student’sa how see projectwe instance particular this In 9). (Figure tilde a of shape the in scheme spatial new a discovered so, doing in and, courtyard outdoor an with room meeting the replaced then between the two central spaces. On the advice of her instructor she which she opened directly to the park. She created a direct passage the Roman road; the second central space onto was directlythe exhibition opened space, she which room, meeting the was space tral spaces were placed next to each other and slightly shifted. One cen- central two scheme generic new a In shifted. slightly space central the with scheme same the drew she diagram subsequent a In side. tion space in the centre, both of which had direct access to the out- exhibi- and room meeting a with scheme plan a explored she Then directly.building a of centre the enter can one how see her helped building particular this of study The system. circulation its derstand un to try to diagrammatically abstracted she which inn, Ottoman one student’s useofprecedent andherdiagrammaticanalyses. of account detailed more a is following The precedent. the abstract each instance students were asked to diagrammatically analyse and In Centre. Pompidou Piano’s Renzo and Rogers Richard and Hall Crown Mies’ studied another houses; Japanese traditional another studied Rohe; der van Mies of work the in arrangement plan free the studied student One hand. in situation design a to example an of features successful of transfer the facilitate and 117) (1994: tion’ situa- another as situation this ‘see students helped precedents at study,looking this in suggest, (1994) colleagues his and Coyne As derive the spatial organizing scheme through diagrammatic analysis. and sometimes precedents were given specific examples tofind study and from to which to instructed were They schemes. spatial to scheme) looked at a local historical building, an building, historical local a at looked scheme) (heart B Student diagrams conceptual their relating difficulties had often Students

- - resentations enhanced communication between instructors and and instructors between communication enhanced resentations rep diagrammatic in it expressing and concept design a mulating of thiscoupling. coupled with external representations and that the designer is aware fa designer’sthe that assumes This innovation. cilitate to is model mental model mental designer’s the of simulation corresponding a evoke might representations such manipulating Furthermore, els. mod- mental of form the in representations mental structured build novices help could diagrams conceptual as such representations spatial schemes. of conceptual diagrams to represent both abstract ideas and generic nated. Teaching this was attempted through requesting construction and the development of generic spatial schemes need to be coordi- ideas abstract of formulation the that understand to came students of precedents. specifics the and diagrams conceptual of generalities the both highlighted strategies both of use coordinated This strategies. both through evolves and examples specific with starts design reasoning based call Oxman and Oxman what through evolves and schemes generic with starts design reasoning model-based In case-based reasoning are two distinct cognitive strategies in design. and reasoning model-based (1992), Oxman sug and Oxman as by gested because, highlighting worth is precedents and diagrams conceptual of use the of coupling This similarities. superficial rather than relationships spatial about think students encouraged way this in precedents at idea look to same diagrams Using the variations. explore several in could to they applied be therefore, could problems; and different generic were schemes their that convinced it them Furthermore, others. from inspiration get could who architects as themselves see to students empowered eye analytical and through different variations. Often, looking at precedents with an precedents in schemes these studied further and diagrams their in suggested schemes spatial generic the on focused students These wereideas their generic. that were understood diagrams who those their from modifying most benefited who students The explorations. their in far that went students the of none however, shifts; radical for opportunities provided have might diagrams conceptual the in diagrams in response to emerging requirements. Such modifications conceptual their modify to encouraged were Students ideas. new rations and consider variations of the initial concept rather than seek students were encouraged to follow them during their design explo- long as their initial ideas met the requirements of the design situation As processdesign. acquiredthe of students moreof understanding Above all, an explicit attempt on the part of the students at for at students the of part the on attempt explicit an all, Above physical constructing that conjectured is it study this on Based that was diagrams conceptual with working of benefit third A that was diagrams conceptual with working of benefit second A . In this study students were encouraged to use to encouraged were students study this In adaptation. Architectural DesignStudents’Explorationsthrough ConceptualDiagrams . In case- In refinement. - - - -

119 The Design Journal

120 The Design Journal Fehmi Dogan students to succeed using either of these processes because of the for difficult be would It properties. emergent visualizing of means a as sketching of significance the or process generation idea the in Views of creativity often highlight either the importance of incubation Conclusion meaningful tothem. personally are that analogies upon calling by model mental rich a of lack their for compensate quiresmay Students model. mental rich a re- this understanding that suggest I diagrams; conceptual through facilitated be might them between coordinating while domains two the of one manipulating that understanding was students for ficult more dif- Still time. with acquirable but difficult be to seemed grams dia- conceptual through explorations spatial and conceptual the of correspondence structural the establishing however, students, For domain. spatial the and domain conceptual the both in changes in resulted diagrams conceptual of manipulation the Libeskind, Daniel their initialideascoupledwithnewspatialschemes. of interpretations new to them led diagrams their of manipulations B’s Student A’s and Student only study, this in students the all Of ideas. conceptual represent also which components diagram, a of components ambiguous less relatively manipulates but properties emergent inspect and see to sketches only not designer a which in process, discovery different rather a suggests instance, for work, Kahn’s changes. conceptual foster might that ideas emergent for look to order in representations diagrammatic generic their nipulate spatial domain(DoganandNersessian,2010). diagram may conceptual bring simultaneous, coordinated the changes in the in conceptual and changes how and 2002) Zimring, and ceptual diagram can help generate different spatial variations (Dogan con- same the how us show Kahn Louis as such designers expert contrast to most students’ use of conceptual diagrams in this study, In schemes. differentspatial through idea generic same the of tions varia- consider to wereable students two These aregeneric. grams dia- conceptual that understand to seemed two only and planning, diagrams may represent both abstract ideas and ideas about spatial conceptual that understand to seemed five diagrams, conceptual in were they structed in conceptual diagrams. Among the six students who drew though even diagrams, zoning or diagrams bubble may represent a design idea. Some students (seven), however, drew diagrams conceptual that understanding an acquired 13) of out (six students some that showed drawings logbook students’ of Study Difficulties forstudents:Conceptualshifts dents’ progress. stu- follow easily more may instructors thus and eye, by graspable and memorable easily are representations generic Such students. For some expert designers, such as Kahn, James Stirling and and Stirling James Kahn, as such designers, expert some For For the students in this study it seemed to be even harder to ma- -

tions withoutabandoningtheir idea. have could ideas differentcomparecould they that and variations varia- eliminate and generic that learned also than Students rather them. copy architects’ ‘master with ideas design share they that them showing by students the empowered This new situations. in design them use could they that so them abstract and examples yardstick throughout thedesignprocess. a as concept that used then and concept meaningful personally a formulated first students proposal particular this In understanding. own their develop to allowed be must students approach teaching pedagogical approaches would favour different students. every With different that and styles learning different have students that added arestudents which be should It motivated. and committed focused, of conceptual diagrams may help create a classroom environment in a of model mental a design situation. of may construction the in analogies tool useful students, a For become models. mental rich lack students examples, design and schemes spatial generic ideas, abstract of set correlated a include situations design of models mental whose that convert architects, expert to contrast In configuration. spatial a can into concept they whether and concept design meaningful a construct can they whether to relatedhowever, remains work, sign that method emphasizes the use of conceptual diagrams. The quality of their de- teaching design concept-driven a in better process an experteyetointerpret themarksonpaper. requiresoften sketching and designers, some by described as cess Incubation requires intense preliminary work and is not a simple pro- out much effort, or through purposeless explorations is problematic. of the design process as one in which ideas emerge suddenly, with- However,approach.productivemore a conception with a time later a at problem the up take and impasse an with faced when pause designers often that suggest creativity in incubation of significance the highlight who those Furthermore, ideas. new develop or ideas imagined their realize designers helps sketching how of evidence and developadesignidea. which students were asked to use conceptual diagrams to formulate in one education, design to approach alternative an of weaknesses reasons highlighted above. This study investigated the strengths and Alexander, C. (1964). References Bauer, M. I. and Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1993). ‘How diagrams can can diagrams ‘How (1993). P. N. Johnson-Laird, and I. M. Bauer, During the course the students learned how to look at other other at look to how learned students the course the During use the emphasizing method teaching design concept-driven A design the manage may students that suggests study This with rich is sketches and sketching of role the on literature The improve reasoning’. Psychological Science, 4(6):372–378. Press. Notes on the Synthesis of Form. Architectural DesignStudents’Explorationsthrough ConceptualDiagrams London: Pion

121 The Design Journal

122 The Design Journal Fehmi Dogan Ervin, S. M. (1990). ‘Designing with diagrams: a role for computing for role a diagrams: with ‘Designing (1990). M. S. Ervin, (1991). A. M. Boden, oet J D ad lmn, . . 19) ‘fet o student- of ‘Effects (1999). J. J. Clement, and D. J. Gobert, Gentner,for theoreticalframework ‘Structure-mapping:A (1983). D. Gattis, M. and Holyoak, K. J. (1996). ‘Mapping conceptual to spatial Dorst, K. and Cross, N. (2001). ‘Creativity in the design process: process: design the in ‘Creativity (2001). N. Cross, and K. Dorst, programming of ‘Interaction (2002). M. C. Zimring, F. and Dogan, in abstraction ‘Generic (2010). J. N. Nersessian, and F. Dogan, architect the in diagrams conceptual F.of roleDogan, ‘The (2003). diagrams with ‘Thinking (2001). D. M. Gross, and Y.-L. E. Do, the in ‘Metaphors (1994). D. Martin, and A. Snodgrass, R., Coyne, and Modernism aesthetics: ‘Diagramming (2000). J. M. Clayton, ‘Categorization (1981). R. Glaser, P.and Feltovich, H., T. M. Chi, the in strategy cognitive a as analogy ‘Visual (2004). H. Casakin, in design education and exploration’. In McCullough, M., M., McCullough, In W. exploration’. and Mitchell, education design in 425–437. conceptual understanding of causal and dynamic knowledge in knowledge dynamic and causal on of understanding conceptual summaries student-generated versus diagrams generated analogy’. CognitiveScience,7(2):155–170. andCognition,22(1):231–240. Learning, Memory relations in visual reasoning’. Cambridge, MA:MITPress, pp.108–122. Studio: Architectural Knowledge and Media in the Computer Era. co-evolution of problem-solution’. problem-solution’. of co-evolution Louis I.Kahn’.JournalofArchitecturalEducation,56(1):47–56. and Rochester of Congregation Unitarian First The design: and Design Studies,31(3):207–236. Stirling’. James by Staatsgalerie of case The creativity: design Thesis, Atlanta,GeorgiaInstituteofTechnology. PhD Unpublished Libeskind’. Daniel by Museum Jewish the and Associates, Wilford and Stirling by Staatsgalerie the Kahn, Louis ural design process: case studies of the First Unitarian Church by 135–149. design’. architectural in design studio’. 257–270. Proceedings. 2000: September UK, Scotland, Edinburgh, 2000, Diagrams Conference, International P. Cheng, M., Anderson, Haarslev,and V. (eds), In century’. 21st the in architecture Cognitive Science,5(2):121–152. novices’. representationand and problemsexperts physics by of B, 33(2):253–268. process’. design the in metaphors of use the ‘Assessing P.(2006). H. 4(2)Casakin, Research, Design performance’. novice versus Expert process: design New York: BasicBooks.

J. and Purcell, P. (eds), (eds), P. Purcell, and J. Journal of Architectural Education, 48(2): 113–125. . Mechanisms and Myths Mind: Creative The Theory and Application of Diagrams: First Diagrams: of Application and Theory Artificial Intelligence Review Intelligence Artificial Journal of Experimental Psychology/ New York: Springer, pp. pp. Springer, York: New Environment and Planning and Environment ein Studies Design The Electronic Design Design Electronic The Journal of of Journal , 15(1–2): 15(1–2): , , 22(5): 22(5): ,

Goldschmidt, G. (1991). ‘The dialectics of sketching’. sketching’. of dialectics ‘The (1991). G. Goldschmidt, problem design of structure ‘The (1992). P. Pirolli, and V. Goel, Oxman, R. E. and Oxman, R. M. (1992). ‘Refinement and adaptation visual of model a re-representation: by ‘Design (1997). R. Oxman, the and diagrams, logic ‘Peirce, (2002). N. P. Johnson-Laird, Johnson-Laird,P. exercisethe and ‘Analogy (1989). creativity’.N. of (1978). D. Hoffmann, (1987). A. Fleisher, and J. Anderson, M., S. Ervin, D., M. Gross, generative and models, mental ‘Situations, (1989). G. J. Greeno, Goldschmidt, G. (1997). ‘Capturing indeterminism: representation in of kids vis The thinking: design visual ‘On (1994). G. Goldschmidt, Nersessian, N. J. (2008). J. N. Nersessian, Maher,computational Tang,a and as L. ‘Co-evolution (2003). H.-H. problem’. design the ‘Discovering P.(1994). Scott, P.and Lloyd, Institute and S. Corbusier,Kolbowski, Le K., Eardley,Frampton, A., design’. architectural in strategies ‘Cognitive (1979). B. Lawson, (1987). G. Lakoff, design’. and ‘Form (1961). I. L. Kahn, spaces’. CognitiveScience,16(3):395–429. 39–53. tectonics’. plate in designcognition’. DesignStudies,13(2):117–134. reasoning indesign’.DesignStudies,18(4):329–347. MA: MITPress. reasoning’. of operations elementary 313–331. Reasoning. (eds), A. Ortony, and S. Vosniadou, In . NewYork:and ItsHistory DoverPublications. Design. NewYork: Wiley, pp.53–83. ‘Designing with constraints’. In Kalay, Y. E. (ed.), NJ: Erlbaum,pp.285–318. (eds), K. Kotovsky, and Information D. Processing: The Impact of Klahr, Herbert A. Simon. In Hillsdale, knowledge’. the designproblem space’.DesignStudies,18(4):441–455. architecture’. DesignStudies,15(2):158–174. Research Journal,4(2):123–143. 14(1): 47–64. design’. of model cognitive and Design Studies,15(2):125–140. Publications. Rizzoli International Church. for Architecture and Urban Studies (1981). Ergonomics, 22(1):59–68. Chicago Press. Mind the about Reveal Categories 145–154. 8(1): 69–95. New York: Institute for Architecture and Urban Studies: Urban and Architecture for York:Institute New Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. pp. Press, University Cambridge Cambridge: Journal of Research in Science TeachingScience 36(1): in , Research of Journal Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What What Things: Dangerous and Fire, Women, Frank Lloyd Wright’s Fallingwater: The House The Fallingwater: Wright’s Lloyd Frank Creating Scientific Concepts. Scientific Creating Architectural DesignStudents’Explorationsthrough ConceptualDiagrams Research in Engineering Design, Engineering in Research . Architectural Design Architectural

Chicago, IL: University of of University IL: Chicago, Thinking and Reasoning and Thinking Similarity and Analogical Analogical and Similarity Le Corbusier’s Firminy Computability of Cambridge, Creativity Creativity Complex Complex , 31(4): 31(4): , ,

123 The Design Journal

124 The Design Journal Fehmi Dogan and Environmental Design Research Association Conference (EDRA). as Diagrammatic Reasoning, Cognitive Science Society Conference, and Sciences, Learning of Journal Email: [email protected] Fax: 902327507012 Tel: 902327507050 Gulbahce, Urla,Izmir35430, Turkey. Technology,of Institute Izmir Architecture, of Faculty Dogan, Fehmi Address forCorrespondence as such journals in published has He systems. representational and cognition design methods, research design, architectural on courses undergraduate-level and graduate- teaches He designers. novice and expert by analogy of use the and pedagogy design on research conducts he Currently, the in design diagrams process of Louis I. conceptual Kahn, James Stirling of and Daniel role Libeskind. the investigating studies case archival conducted he thesis, doctoral his For design. in architectural systems representational different of use the in specifically and Institute of Technology. He is interested in design cognition in general Dogan Fehmi Biography Pfeiffer,Wright,and B. B. F. (1990). L. Stenning, K. and Lemon, O. (2001). ‘Aligning logical and psycho and logical ‘Aligning (2001). O. Lemon, and K. Stenning, exploring distinction: graphic-linguistic ‘The (2001). A. Shimojima, their and seeing of ‘Kinds (1992). G. Wiggins, and A. D. Schön, the with conversation reflective as ‘Designing (1992). D. Schön, worlds’. and types rules, ‘Designing: (1988). D. Schön, Suwa, M., Gero, J. and Purcell, T. (2000). ‘Unexpected discoveries ‘Unexpected T.Purcell,(2000). and J. Gero, M., Suwa, (1987). D. Schön, of exemplar an as studio architectural ‘The (1984). D. Schön, alternatives’. ArtificialIntelligenceReview,15(1–2):95–114. alternatives’. functions indesigning’.DesignStudies,13(2):135–156. 3(3): 131–147. situation’. design a of materials Studies, 9(3):181–190. Francisco, CA:Jossey-BassPublishers. Archives Wright Lloyd Frank the from Masterworks design process’. DesignStudies,21(6):539–567. a for vehicles Important requirements: design of S-invention and reasoning’. diagrammatic Intelligence Review,15(1–2):29–62. on perspectives logical Professions the in Learning and Teaching for Design New Education, 38(1):2–9. reflection-in-action’. for education Abrams. Design Studies. He has presented his work at conferences such is Assistant Professor of Architecture at the Izmir Izmir the at Architecture of Professor Assistant is Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Toward a Toward Practitioner: Reflective the Educating Journal of Environmental Psychology Environmental of Journal Journal of Architectural Education Architectural of Journal Research in Engineering Design, Engineering in Research Frank Lloyd Wright Drawings: Wright Lloyd Frank Journal of Architectural Architectural of Journal .

New York: New Artificial Artificial Design Design .

San San ,