THE POTENTIAL OF REASONING METHODS AS A TEACHING STRATEGY SUPPORTING STUDENTS’ CREATIVE THINKING IN ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN

Han Hee Choi, Mi Jeong Kim

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.26687/archnet-ijar.v10i3.1048

Abstract

Much research has emphasized the importance of ‘learning by doing’ in design education. Reasoning methods would be an effective strategy to support students’ reflection-in-action in designing. ‘Knowing how’ is associated with ‘design thinking’, and further, with ‘creativity’, which is essential for design outcomes. This research explores the potential of reasoning methods, specifically analogical reasoning and metaphorical reasoning, in design education for encouraging students to produce creative thinking in a design studio. For one semester, students were educated to adopt analogies and metaphors in designing and how students approached given design problems to produce design ideas was observed. The results showed that adopting reasoning methods as a teaching strategy in a design studio encouraged the development of the students’ design thinking by reorienting their approach to design, which eventually led to enhanced creativity in designing. Based on the results, this research presents critical issues to be considered for encouraging students to utilize analogical and metaphorical reasoning in designing.



Keywords

Analogical reasoning; creativity; design education; design thinking; metaphorical reasoning

Full Text:

PDF

References

Atkinson, S. (2000). Does the need for high levels of performance curtail the development of creativity in design and technology project work?. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 10, p. 255-281.

Blackwell, A. F. (2006). The reification of metaphor as a design tool. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 13(4), p. 490-530.

Casakin, H. (2004). Metaphors in the design studio: Implications for education. In P. Lloyd, N. Roozenburg, C. McMahon, & E. Brodhurst (Eds.), Proceedings of E&PDE 2004, the 2nd International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education (p. 265-273). Delft, Netherlands.

Casakin, H. (2011). Metaphorical reasoning and design expertise: A perspective for design education. Journal of learning design, 4(2), p. 29-38.

Chakradeo, U. (2010). Design pedagogy: A tested path. International Journal of Architectural Research, 4(2-3), p. 107-115.

Cheong, H., Hallihan, G., and Shu, L. H. (2012). Understanding analogical reasoning in biomimetic design: An inductive approach. In J. S. Gero (Ed.), Design computing and cognition (p. 21-40). New York, N. Y.: Springer.

Cropley, D. and Cropley, A. (2010). Recognizing and fostering creativity in technological design education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 20(3), p. 345-358.

Cross, N. (2007). Designerly ways of Knowing. New York, N. Y.: Springer.

Dahl, D. W., and Moreau, P. (2002). The influence and value of analogical thinking during new product ideation. Journal of Marketing Research, 39(1), p. 47-60.

Demirbas, O. O. (2001). The relation of learning styles and performance scores of the students in interior architecture education (PhD dissertation). Bilkent University, Ankara, Turkey.

Demirbas, O. O., and Demirkan, H. (2003). Focus on architectural design process through learning styles. Design Studies, 24, p. 437-456.

Demirkan, H. (2016). An inquiry into the learning-style and knowledge-building preferences of interior architecture students. Design Studies, 44, p. 28-51.

Deshpande, S. A., and Khan, A. R. (2010). Towards total integration in design studio. International Journal of Architectural Research, 4(2-3), p. 252-261.

Dorst, K. (2010). The nature of design thinking. In K. Dorst, S. Stewart, I. Standinger, B. Paton, and A. Dong (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th Design Thinking Research Symposium (p. 131-139).

Dorst, K. (2011). The core of 'design thinking' and its application. Design Studies, 32, p. 521-532.

Gentner, D. (1989). The mechanisms of analogical learning. In A Ortony and S. Vosniadou(Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (p. 197-241). Cambridge, U. K.: Cambridge University Press.

Goldschmidt, G. (2001). Visual Analogy: A strategy for design reasoning and learning. In C. Eastman, M. McCracken, and W. Newstetter (Eds.), Design knowledge and learning: Cognitition in design education. Elsevier Science Ltd.

Hausman, C. R. (2009). Criteria of creativity. In M. Krausz, D. Dutton, & K. Bardsley (Eds.), The idea of creativity. Boston, M. A.: Brill.

Holyoak, K. J. (1995). Mental leap: Analogy in creative thought. Boston, M.A.: MIT Press.

Howard-Jones, P. A. (2002). A dual-state model of creative cognition for supporting strategies that foster creativity in the classroom. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 12(3), p. 215-226.

Howard, T. J., Culley, S. J., and Dekoninck, E. (2008). Describing the creative design process by the integration of engineering design and cognitive psychology literature. Design Studies, 29(2), p. 160-180.

Kvan, T. and Jia, Y. (2005). Student's learning styles and their correlation with performance in architectural design studio. Design Studies, 26, p. 29-38.

Mail, D. S. (1987). Metaphor and affect: The problem of creativity thought. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 2(2), p. 81-96.

Mak, T. W. and Shu, L. H. (2004). Use of biological phenomena in design by analogy. Proceedings of ASME 2011 International Design Engineering Technical Conference & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference.

Mayer, R. E. (1999). Fifty years of creativity research. New York, N. Y.: Cambridge University Press.

Nabih, H. E. (2010). Process-based learning: Towards theorectical and lecture-based coursework in studio style. International Journal of Architectural Research, 4(2-3), p. 90-106.

Ortony, A. (1991). Metaphor and thought. Boston, M. A.:Cambridge University Press.

Ostwald, M. and Willians, A. (2008). Understanding architectural education in Australasia. Sydney: ALTC.

Oxman, R. (1995). Observing the observers: Research issues in analyzing design activity. Design Studies, 16(2), p. 275-283.

Perry, L. (1987). The education value of creativity. Journal of Art & Education, 16(3), p. 285-296.

Perttula, M. K. (2006). Idea generation in engineering design: application of memory search perspective and some experimental studies (PhD dissertation). Helsinki University.

Peters, R. S. (1965). Education as initiation. Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Schön, D. (1983). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. London, U. K.: Temple Smith.

Schon, D. A. (1988). Toward a marriage of artistry and applied science in the architectural design studio. Journal of Architectural Education, 41(4), p. 4-10.

Scott, G., Leritz, L. E., and Mumford, M. D. (2004). The effectiveness of creativity training: A quantitative review. Creativity Research Journal, 116(4), p. 361-388.

Torrance, E. P. (1976). Creativity in the classroom. Washington, D. C.: National Education Association Publication.

Wang, T. (2010). A new paradigm for design studio education. JADE, 29(2), p. 173-183.

Willians, A., Ostwald, M., and Askland, H. H. (2010). Assessing creativity in the context of architectural design education. Proceedings of Design Research Society International Conference 2010. Montreal, Canada.

Wilson, J. O. (2010). The effects of biological examples in idea generation. Design Studies, 31, p. 169-186.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Copyright (c) 2016 International Journal of Architectural Research: ArchNet-IJAR



ABOUT US


- ISSN (Online) #1938 7806 - ArchNet-IJAR is covered by ArchNet@ MIT Libraries, Avery Index to Architectural Periodicals, EBSCO, CNKI, Pro-Quest, Scopus-Elsevier, Web of Science.

- Published work in ArchNet-IJAR is licensed under Creative Commons: CC-BY--NC-ND license, see http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/

Copyrights © Archnet-IJAR 2007-2017

 
 

Hit Counter
Visitor Hits Since 15 Jan 2014