SavedAdd your journal

Journals / IOJET / 2021 / Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 3

VISUAL ANALOGY AS A COGNITIVE STRATEGY IN THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN PROCESS: EXPERT VERSUS NOVICE PERFORMANCE

Mouloud Chaabi
Ali Chougui
Journal
IOJET
Pages
1348–1368
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The results showed that novices and experts were able to reason by visual analogy and used deep analogies.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study examined the use of analogy in architectural design.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Its main goal was to provide an understanding of how experts and novices alike used visual analog thinking to generate satisfactory solutions during their design process.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results showed that novices and experts were able to reason by visual analogy and used deep analogies.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

This study examined the use of analogy in architectural design. Its main goal was to provide an understanding of how experts and novices alike used visual analog thinking to generate satisfactory solutions during their design process. A series of controlled experiments were conducted in order to examine how this cognitive strategy contributes to improving the resolution of design problems in each group of participants. Students and architects were asked to solve a set of unusual design problems. They were stimulated by exposure to visual images, and were given explicit instructions for using the analogy. The results showed that novices and experts were able to reason by visual analogy and used deep analogies. It was found out that the experts identified and recovered analogies from out-of-domain images. Novices, however, identified a large number of out-of-domain images, but recovered the analogies of out-of-domain and out-domain images to the same extent. Novices, unlike experts, did not add constraints to the initial design problem, but produced a large number of solutions. These results were found significant implications for the teaching of architectural projects.

🔖

Cite This Article

Chaabi, M., Chougui, A. (2022). VISUAL ANALOGY AS A COGNITIVE STRATEGY IN THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN PROCESS: EXPERT VERSUS NOVICE PERFORMANCE. IOJET, Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 3, 1348–1368. https://ajindex.com/articles/542195

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (18)

  1. Anderson, J. (1983) A spreading activation theory of memory, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, pp 261-295.
  2. Akin, O. (1990) Necessary conditions for design expertise and creativity, Design Studies, 7 (2), pp 107-113.
  3. Beveridge, M. and Parkins, E. (1987) Visual representation in analogical problem- solving, Memory and Cognition, 15(3), pp 230-237.
  4. Bransford, J., Franks, J., Vye, N. and Sherwood, R. (1989) New approaches to instruction: because wisdom can't be told in Vosniadou, S. and Ortony, A. (eds) Similarity and analogical reasoning, pp 470-497,
  5. Cambridge University Press,
  6. Cambridge. Casakin, H. and Goldschmidt, G. (1999) Expertise and the Use of Analogy and Visual Displays: Implications for Design Education, Design Studies, 20 (2), pp 153-175.
  7. Casakin, H. and Goldschmidt, G. (2000) Reasoning by Visual Analogy in Design Problem-Solving: The Role of Guidance, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 27, pp 105-119.
  8. Casakin, H. (2002) Well-Defined vs. Ill-Defined Design Problem Solving: The Use of Visual Analogy, in Common Ground Proceedings of The Design Research Society International, Stoke on Trent, pp 202-216.
  9. Collins, A. and Burstein, M. (1989) after word: A framework for a theory of comparison and mapping, in Vosniadou, S. and Ortony, A. (Eds). Similarity and analogical reasoning, pp 546-565,
  10. Cambridge University Press,
  11. Cambridge. Chase, W. G. and Simon, H. A. (1973)
  12. Perception in chess, Cognitive Psychology, 4, pp 55-81.
  13. Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J. and Glasser, R. (1981) Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices, Cognitive Science, 5, pp 121-152.
  14. Daheler, M. and Chen, Z. (1993) Protagonist, theme, and goal object: effects of surface features on analogical transfer, Cognitive Development, B (2), pp 211- 229. Davies, S. P., Gilmore, D. J. and Green, T. R. (1995) Are objects that important? Effects of expertise and familiarity on classification of object-oriented code, Human-Computer Interaction, 10, pp 227-248.
  15. Dejong, G. (1989). The role of explanation in analogy; or, the curse of an alluring name, in Vosniadou, S. and A. Ortony, (Eds.). Similarity and analogical reasoning, 346-365. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  16. Dominowski, R. (1995). Productive Problem Solving, in R. Finke, T. Ward, and S. Smith (1995). The creative cognition approach, 73-95.
  17. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  18. Eckert, C., Stacey, M. and Wiley, J (1999). Expertise and designer burnout. International conference on engine