This study offers an insight to architectural students' problem framing activities using digital and paper media. The role of problem framing in design processes and its contribution to design learning has been studied by others. Here, we investigate the effects of media on framing activities. Laboratory experiments were conducted to investigate problem framing under three settings, namely online co-located, online remote and paper-based co-located. Student pairs were asked to spend forty minutes in solving collaboratively a wicked design problem. The results show that problem framing activities are significantly different in the online remote setting compared to those in the two co-located settings. We find more density of framing activities happened in the online remote setting than in the other two settings while there is no significant difference between online co-located and paper-based co- located settings.
References
1.
RoweP. G., Design Thinking, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1987.
2.
RittelH.W.J. and WebberM., Dilemma in a General Theory of Planning, Policy Sciences, 1973, 4, pp. 155–160.
3.
ChurchmanC.W., Wicked Problems, Management Science, 1967, 14, pp. B141–B142.
4.
AsimowM., Introduction to Design, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1962.
5.
SimonH.A., The Sciences of the Artificial, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1996.
6.
SchönD. A., Problems, Frames and Perspectives on Designing, Design Studies, 1984, 5, pp. 132–136.
7.
GoldschmidtG., The Dialectics of Sketching, Creativity Research Journal, 1991, 4, pp. 123–134.
8.
SchönD.A. and WigginsG., Kinds of Seeing and Their Functions in Designing, Design Studies, 1992, 13, pp. 135–156.
9.
EisenmanP., 'Visions Unfolding: Architecture in the Age of Electronic Media, NesbittK. ed., Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture: An Anthology of Architectural Theory 1965–1995, Princeton Architectural Press, New York, NY, 1996.
10.
Corona-MartinezA. and QuantrillM., The Architectural Project, Texas A & M University Press, 2003.
11.
KvanT.VeraA. and WestR., Expert and Situated Actions in Collaborative Design, in: SiriruchatapongP.LinZ. and BarthesJ.-P. eds., Proceedings of second international workshop on CSCW in design, International Academic Publishers, Beijing, 1997, pp. 400–405.
12.
SchönD. A., The Design Studio: An Exploration of Its Traditions & Potential, RIBA Publications Limited, London, 1985.
13.
MitchellW. J., The Logic of Architecture: Design, Computation and Cognition, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, London, England, 1994.
14.
BuchananR., Wicked Problems in Design Thinking, MargolinV. and BuchananR. eds., The Idea of Design, MIT Press, Cambridge. MA, 1995.
15.
GoldschmidtG., Problem Representation Versus Domain of Solution in Architectural Design Teaching, Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 1989, 6, pp. 204–215.
16.
KolodnerJ. L. and WillsL. M., Powers of Observation in Creative Design, Design Studies, 1996, 17, pp. 385–416.
17.
CrossN. and CrossA. C., Expertise in Engineering Design, Research in Engineering Design-Theory Applications and Concurrent Engineering, 1998, 10, pp. 141–149.
18.
CrossN., Natural Intelligence in Design, Design Studies, 1999, 20, pp. 25–39.
19.
GeolV. and PirolliP., The Structure of Design Problem Spaces, Cognitive Science, 1992, 16, pp. 395–429.
20.
CrossN., Design Cognition: Results from Protocol and Other Empirical Studies of Design Activity, EastmanC. M.McCrackenW. M. and NewstetterW. C. eds., Design Knowing and Learning Cognition in Design EducationElsevier Science Ltd, Oxford, 2001.
21.
CrossN., Expertise in Design: An Overview, Design Studies, 2004, 25, pp. 427–441.
22.
SchönD. A., The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, Basic Books Inc., New York, 1983.
23.
DeweyJ., How We Think – a Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process, Boston, 1933.
24.
ArgyrisC., Knowledge for Action: A Guide to Overcoming Barriers to Organizational Change, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, 1993.
SchönD. A., The Theory of Inquiry: Dewey's Legacy to Education, Curriculum Inquiry, 1992, p. 22.
27.
SachsA., ‘Stuckness’ in the Design Studio, Design Studies, 1999, 20, pp. 195–209.
28.
KvanT., Learning through Structural Activity in Collaborative Computer Aided Design, in: Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Computer Aided Architectural Design Research in Asia, CAADRIA '02, Multimedia University, Cyberjaya, Malaysia, 2002.
29.
SellenA. J. and HarperR., The Myth of the Paperless Office, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2001.
30.
WigleyM.PaperScissorsBlurZegherM. C. d. and WigleyM. eds., The Activist Drawing: Retracing Situationist Architectures from Constant's New Babylon to BeyondDrawing Center; MIT Press, New York: Cambridge, MA; London, 2001.
31.
RobbinsE., Why Architects Draw, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1994.
32.
LawsonB., Design in Mind, Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd., Oxford, 1994.
33.
GabrielG. and MaherM. L., Analysis of Design Communication with and without Computer Mediation, in: Proceedings of Co-designing 2000, 2000, pp. 329–337.
34.
SchnabelM.A. and KvanT., Spatial Understanding in Immersive Virtual Environments, International Journal of Architectural Computing, 2003, 1.
35.
KockN., Can a Leaner Medium Foster Better Group Outcomes? A Study of Computer-Supported Process Improvement Groups, KhosrowpourM. ed., Effective Utilization and Management of Emerging Information TechnologiesIdea Group Publishing, 1998.
36.
LahtiH.Seitamaa-HakkarainenP. and HakkarainenK., Collaboration Patterns in Computer Supported Collaborative Designing, Design Studies, 2004, 25, pp. 35–371.
37.
PuntambekarS.NagelK.HübscherR.GuzdialM. and KolodnerJ. L., Intra-Group and Intergroup: An Exploration of Learning with Complementary Collaboration Tools, in: EnyedyR. H. N. M. N. ed., Proceedings of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning '97 (CSCL'97), 1997, pp. 207–214.
38.
EastmanC. M., Explorations of the Cognitive Processes in Design, Department of computer science report, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, 1968.
39.
DorstK. and DijkhuisJ., Comparing Paradigms for Describing Design Activity, Design Studies, 1995, 16, pp. 261–274.
40.
SuwaM. and TverskyB., What Architects See in Their Sketches: Implications for Design Tools, in: Conference on Human Factors and Computing Systems, ACM Press, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, 1996, pp. 191–192.
41.
KavakliM. and GeroJ. S., Sketching as Mental Imagery Processing, Design Studies, 2001, 22, pp. 347–364.
42.
LloydP.LawsonB. and ScottP., Can Concurrent Verbalization Reveal Design Cognition?, Design Studies, 1995, 16, pp. 237–259.
43.
MitchellW. J., Cad as a Social Process, in: TanM. and TehR. eds., The Global Design Studio, Centre for Advanced Studies in Architecture National University of Singapore, Singapore, 1995, pp. 7–10.
44.
DorstK., Analysing Design Activity: New Directions in Protocol Analysis, Design Studies, 1995, 16, pp. 139–142.
45.
KvanT.YipW. H. and VeraA., Supporting Design Studio Learning: An Investigation into Design Communication in Computer-Supported Collaboration, in: CSCL'99, Stanford University, 1999, pp. 328–332.
46.
KvanT.WongJ.T. H. and VeraA. H., Supporting Structural Activities in Design: A Multiple-Case Study, in: ChanA.ChanS.HongV. L. and NgV. eds., Proceedings of Fifth International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design (CSCWD2000), Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, 2000, pp. 116–120.
47.
KvanT.WongJ.T. H. and VeraA., The Contribution of Structural Activities to Successful Design, International Journal of Computer Applications in Technology, 2003, 16(2/3), pp. 122–126.
