Case-based instruction strategies in architecture

Abstract

This paper is about Case Based Instruction (CBI) and not about computer implemented Case Based Reasoning systems, as some readers tend to assume.CBI is a very old method of teaching, particularly in the studio setting. Usually it takes the form of precedent analysis. An empirical study was conducted in order to better understand how experienced designers use cases in the course of a brief design session. Based on this experience a computer based case tool, Electronic Design Assistance Tool (EDAT), was developed and used in studio instruction. Finally, our experience with case based instruction in non-design courses is described. Keywordscase based instruction, precedent based design, electronic design aids Normative theories of learning suggest that success is most likely to be achieved when students learn (1) the principles governing events or phenomenon in a discipline, and (2) ways of applying these principles to specific situations to solve problems of various kinds. We call this the didactic method. In didactic approach there is a systematic representation of the fundamental principles of knowledge that identify a specific domain upon which a corpus of applications or problem solving skills can be constructed. For example, once students understand the Theory of Thermodynamics, they then are able to apply its principles in different problem contexts demonstrating a command of the knowledge of the sub-discipline of dynamics in Physics. Likewise, Trigonometry or the Pythagorean Theorem explains immutable relationships between geometric elements. These relationships help scientists and designers alike configure complex forms with precision.When such a theory is altered or replaced by a new theory, the educational approach uses the new in place of the old. First principles occupy the driving seat in fields where such generalizable rules abound. Most academic disciplines, particularly the traditional ones, use a didactic approach.In fields that deal with professional practice, for example design, instruction appears to deviate from this pattern in significant ways. Students are rarely given robust principles (ones that hold in different contexts), let alone immutable ones, upon which they can construct designs that can be judged infallible, or even reasonably error free. Instead they are given plenty of precedents from which to learn a variety of heuristics. This type of knowledge is fundamentally situated in a context of extradomain information and its pedagogy is experiential.The experiential approach to learning is omnipresent, for example, in architectural curricula. Descriptions of design instruction, or for that matter, architectural curricula within which such instruction is found, are invariably of an indirect kind. They describe the stylistic or formal attributes of the architecture that is promoted by the particular pedagogy in order to explain its characteristics, principles and techniques. 5,7,8,11,19 1 Architectural PedagogyIn one of the most frequently cited schools of education, namely the ...

Metaphorical reasoning and design expertise: A perspective for design education

“…Akin, 2002;Goldschmidt, 1998), transference of instructor design experience, or trial and error approach (Demirbas & Demirkan, 2003;Purcell & Gero, 1996). Proficiency in the use of metaphors may contribute to gaining self-determination in design intentions, bridging the critical gap between the conceptual/abstract design phase and the development of tangible and detailed design solutions, as well as helping students to gain a better understanding of the design process.…”

“…For this reason, in most of the cases, essential information contained in the visual sources is misunderstood and reproduced without questioning its relevance to the new problem requirements (Sacks, 1999). Another problem is that students are expected to produce similar results with novel features, rather than to develop principles that can direct their own creation to novel solutions (Akin, 2002). On the other hand, these principles are too specific, and learning how to identify, retrieve and apply them to the design problem usually demands a level of expertise that most students lack.…”

Beleška O Problemu Složenosti Arhitektonskog Projektovanja I Njegovog Učenja

“…Despite the fact studio presents a primary mechanism for teaching architectural design at university-based schools of architecture, it still has some substantial problems and shortcomings which were addressed by few of the most influential researchers in this field [1,3,17,18,19]. Firstly, as stated in [3], design studio lacks clarity and is characterized by sometimes contradictory objectives, implicit theories and inherent conditions.…”

The typological learning framework: the application of structured precedent design knowledge in the architectural design studio

“…A number of computational systems have been developed to aid the identification and extraction of relevant precedent information including EDAT (Akin 2002), ArchIMap (Tunçer 2009), DYNAMO (Heylighen et al 2007), ProductWorld (Muller and Pasman 1996) and PRECEDENTS (Oxman and Oxman 1993). These tools either lack an organizational structure or use pre-defined categorisation which require significant input from either the user or the creator to populate with information.…”