The Interpretation of Graphical Features Applied to Mapping SWOT by the Architecture Students in the Design Studio

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to gain an understanding of how the architecture students deploy a range of graphical features to visualize SWOT, standing for Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats. Architectural design studios provide students with a range of analytical techniques, and SWOT analysis is considered to be useful and effective, particularly at urban-scale design projects. However, it is a text-based framework and needs to be converted to thematic analysis maps across architecture and design fields. The main issue is that the determining factors affecting the way in which students choose graphical features to map the outputs of SWOT analysis is unclear at architectural design studios. The research employed qualitative methods, specifically observation, focus group, and graphical analysis, to examine SWOT maps produced by the architecture students. The findings demonstrated that the selection of graphical features in the process of producing SWOT analysis maps are dependent on scale of study (macro, meso, and micro), as well as location, spatial connection, and size of elements derived from SWOT matrix. For instance, lines and planes were most frequent features at macro level while the variety of symbols remarkably increased at micro level. In conclusion, the students personalized the process of mapping, meaning that they applied point, line, plane (shape), color, texture, and typography in several different ways. Therefore, SWOT analysis not only help architecture students to better understand the problems of their design projects, organize and consolidate information, and visualize opportunities and constraints, but could lead to the representation of realistic solutions in an innovative way.

The student's evaluation of the delivery of the theoretical courses due to warning mask and social distance during the pandemic condition

“…The structure of the design studio was constructed based on social interaction, discussion, and communication (Schon, 1987;Franz, 1994;Lawson, 2005;Tafahomi, 2021a). In this process, the instructors applied physical, graphical, and conceptual activities (Ching F. D., 2010;Ching F. D., 2015;Tafahomi & Nadi, 2021) to deliver the educational content and material. Although the results of the studies referred to the new model of education in architecture (Buldan, 2021) based on distance learning (Ersin et al, 2020), blended learning (Delialioglu & Yildirim, 2007;Gülbahar & Madran, 2009), and practical activities (Tafahomi, 2021d), the students continued to apply the same structure in the theoretical courses such as interaction, communication, and discussion with some limitation that did not affect the whole process.…”

“…The relationships between the instructor and the students follow the interactions in the sessional meetings to discuss the design project through critics and comments that have emerged between the students, instructor, and the design project (Bold & Hutton, 2007;Franz, 1994;McClean & Hourigan, 2013;Tafahomi, 2021a). It was widely discussed that architectural education uses p henomenology and interpretation based on a fundamental hermeneutic to understand, interpret, and explore the meaning and objective of the design project (Krippendorff, 2003;Mugerauer, 1995;Mugerauer, 2014) through physical (Franz, 1994;Schon, 1987), conceptual (Laseau, 2000;Lawson, 2005;Tafahomi, 2021a), and graphical features (Ching F. D., 2010;Ching F. D., 2015;Tafahomi, 2009;Tafahomi & Nadi, 2021). However, social distance has affected this interaction in the design studios based on the new model of education during the pandemic (Buldan, 2021).…”

“…Other clusters of the courses support architecture design studios such as theoretical courses importantly history, building technology, and elective modules (Tafahomi, 2021a). Normally all courses are presented in the design studios although in some departments the theoretical courses are arranged specific rooms (Tafahomi & Nadi, 2021). In this case, despite the trends to adapt the classroom arrangement to the topic of the modules, normally the theoretical courses are delivered in the same arrangement of the room.…”

Developing a Design Framework to Methodize the Architecture Thesis Projects with Emphasis on Programming and Conceptualization Processes

“…The structure observation was applied to recording and mapping (Regis, 2003;Sperlregen, 2003) the specification of the form (Tafahomi & Nadi, 2021a;2021b) and function of the built environment (Tafahomi & Nadi, 2020) or behavioral pattern of the users (Bonnes & Bonaiuto, 2002;Tafahomi, 2022b). The graphical analysis was widely applied for the evaluation, assessment, and interpretation of architectural drawing, sketching, and diagraming (Ching F. D., 2015;Crowe & Laseau, 2011;Goldschmidt, 2004;Laseau, 2000;Tafahomi & Nadi, 2021c).…”

Educational behavior of the students in the design studios during the pandemic time

“…The design studios included sets of social interactions between instructors and students, students and students and the students and projects to develop architectural projects (Tafahomi, 2021a; through in an active interaction between participants, the physical environment of the design studio, and the design project (Buldan, 2021). The students used the graphical tools as the common media for the development of design projects that this ability takes place in the design studio through continuous social interaction (Tafahomi and Nadi, 2021). The influence of social interaction among the students is not limited just to the design projects and software but highly affected the personality and subjectivity of the students through the process of watching, doing, and cooperation (Lee, 2005;Woolfolk, 2016;Tafahomi, 2021e).…”