Teaching Designing: From Concept to Space GOKCE KETİZMEN ONAL

GOKCE KETİZMEN ONAL, PhD., ESKISEHIR OSMANGAZI UNIVERSITY, DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE ESKİSEHIR/TURKİYE

AbstractThere are many factors influence how students learn to design. These comprise specialized set of skills, teaching approaches, the structure and the ability of design tutors and the quality of design curriculum and learning environment: studio itself. Design process in a design studio is a cognitive process and learning in design can be developed by cognitive strategies of design thinking. The most important step of this cognitive process remains as the concept generation process, which must be admitted as the most important issue of a design studio. Conceptualization in a studio becomes so essential and needed to be developed based on each studio level. Most studies in literature underscore the importance of conceptualization and most of them investigate the effects of this idea generation methods on designers. But it is detected that none of these researches make a clear recognition about the proper approaches for each year's studios. It should not be forgotten that in design education there are four ( five at most of colleges) level of undergraduate and the goal of a first-year design studio is totally different from the fourth-year .The aim of this study is to provide a theoretical basis to encourage the strategic use of conceptualization as teaching strategies in the design studio that developed based on the students knowledge level. It is believed that design education can be greatly enhanced by the introduction of developmentally appropriate design process as a teaching strategy. The conceptualization methods in literature that can be utilized in a design studio are investigated and each method are associated to the students knowledge levels, and design studio contents.Keywords: design teaching, design thinking, conceptualization, student’s knowledge level

1. IntroductionMany studies have examined the typical design-studio teaching method in relation to diverse aspects: learning experiences, efficiency, quality of designs, etc. (Carsalade 1997; Oxman 1999a, b; Gouveia et al. 2001; Rufinoni 2002;; Kowaltowski et al. 2006b). (Kowaltowski et al., 2010). Although there are various studies identified problems in architectural education related to the factors influence how students learn to design. These comprise specialized set of skills, teaching approaches, the structure and the ability of design tutors and the quality of design curriculum and learning environment: studio itself. (Curry, 2014). Based on Wkas (1999) research, Schön (1983) describes design as `to discover a framework of meaning in an indeterminate situation through practical operations in the situation`. Also he asserts that Design is learnable but not didactically or discursively teachable: it can be learned only in and through the practical operations of frame experimentation. Design is holistic: its parts cannot be learned in isolation. Design teaching approach in a studio must be structured on introducing students to design principles, problem solving, planning, form-making, tectonics, buildings types and for developing esthetic judgment as well as analytical and representational skills. The medium for design education is discussed here as design studio setting that helps to exchange of ideas for both the students and instructor. In this setting design serves as a mediator between mental activity (invention) and social activity (realisation) (Ruedi, 1996) . Additionally, the aim of design education is to provide different design experiences; to guide in the taking of an active role and / or the taking of risks in different fields of design; to facilitate knowledge acquisition, exchange and processes; to provide a powerful communication and motivation medium and to direct it for student-designers that have different cognitive styles and intellectual superiorities (Kahvecioglu, 2007).In order to discuss about teaching approach in design studio we need to define what design process is ? Design process in a design studio is a cognitive process and learning in design is to be able to develop various cognitive strategies of design thinking. According to Lawson and Dorst a general description of the phase model approach to design process as one in which ‘you first define the problem, analyze it to formulate requirements and then generate solutions.’ (2009; cited in Curry, 2014). The American Institute of Architects (AIA) follows a similar model in their contracts when describing phases for professional services: Pre-Design (research/analysis), Preliminary Design (conceptualization), Design Development (testing/developing the design

concept), Construction Documents (finalizing the design solution), Contract Negotiation, Administration of the Contract, Post Occupancy Evaluation (implementation), etc (Curry, 2014). So many researchers reject this defined and direct proposal for design process. They believe that these kind of scientific approaches devalued the designer. Schon (1984) defines design process as an iterative, cumulative process that builds on the presupposition that design problems are by nature wicked problems. He describes design as a process of framing a problem, performing moves toward a solution, and the evaluation of these moves, that leads to a deeper understanding or new ways of seeing of the problem, leading to new frames and new moves. (Schön,1984)Design studio is a cognitive thinking process and is structured by generating new ideas, discussion about them, transforming, analyses, synthesis and so many mental actions. Thinking in a studio is about its occupants; students and instructors and it is about concepts, processes and the development of dispositions that guide thought and actions in innovative problem solving. Exploration of a problem and solution, generation of creative options ,development and evaluation of pathways are the core of this design thinking process. These thinking process comprise diverse design moves; idea development, narrowing, and generation to eventually determine a final design. (Yilmaz, 2016). Ek & Ipek (2010) assert that design thinking – which is progressed by reflective moves, such as abstraction, implication, causality and generalization – is based on the methods of conceptualization and reflection by utilizing concepts. This conceptualization phase constitute the most important part of design thinking. Because concept is the essence of design.There are so many research about the idea development approach and conceptualization in literature. (Casakin, 2011) (Chiu & Shu, 2007) (Cross, 2006) (Cross, 2011) (Dogan, 2013) (Ek & Ipek, 2010) (Gonc et al.,2014) (Yilmaz, 2016) (Tovey & Porter, 2003) (Taura & Nagai, 2013) (Nagai et al., 2009) (Lai & Chang, 2006)(Nagai & Taura, 2006) (Lee & Jirousek, 2015). Most of these studies underscore the importance of teaching concept generation and most of them investigate the effects of the idea generation methods on designers. But it is detected that none of these research's make a clear recognition about the proper approach for each year's studios. It should not be forgotten that in design education there are four ( five at most of colleges) undergraduate levels. There is no doubt that the education of a first year student is totally different from the fourth-year student. The aim of a first year studio is to explore the fundamental design elements and principles and their application in the design projects. But the fourth year studio deepens the understanding of the profession, and its relationship to different cultures and environmental context. As Oxman (2001) indicates that design education is a medium which enables the transition from the complete novice status of the beginner to the well-initiated status of the graduate designer.The aim of this paper is to provide a theoretical basis to encourage the strategic use of conceptualization as teaching strategies in the design studio, which developed, based on the students knowledge level in each year's studios. It is believed that design education can be greatly enhanced by the introduction of developmentally appropriate conceptualization process as a teaching strategy. The conceptualization methods in literature that can be utilized in a design studio are investigated and each methods are associated to the students knowledge levels. This study presents a comparative analysis of the conceptualization methods in relation to student’s knowledge levels.Study starts to investigate conceptualization ( concept development) and its relation to studio. Then, related approaches/ methods and techniques are discussed and four proper methods; Think-Maps (Oxman,2004) , Concept-synthesizing process (Nagai et al., 2009) , Design-by-Analogy ( Casakin & Goldschmidt (1999), Goldschmidt, 2001). Metaphorical Reasoning (Casakin, 2011) (Casakin, 2007) (Gulari, 2015) are presented. Then a comparative analysis is generated in order to identify these methods purposes and assessment tools that an instructor may exploit in studio . Also this analysis is developed for to find out which one of these methods can be utilized on which level of studio.

2. Conceptualization in Design Thinking. According to the process of architectural design is largely a thinking activity, and is composed of consecutive series of phases. Conceptualization, considered as concept generation process, is the first step of design thinking, covers mental moves like analysis/synthesis, transformations and exemplar retrievals like; abstraction, implication, causality and generalization. These structures might consist of imagined three-dimensional forms, mental models and designs and exemplars for novel or hypothetical categories. A number of design studies have addressed the roles of generation in the formation of ideas (namely, concept generation) related to the original design ( (Nagai et al., 2009); Liu et al., 2003; Chiu and Shu, 2007). Conceptual knowledge, the ideational basis of design, constitutes one of the most significant forms of knowledge in design. Concepts are fundamental to design thinking, since they operate on an ideational level. They are the fundamental material of design thinking. Various researchers have explored the conceptual nature

of knowledge and the different ways designers explain conceptual knowledge. (Oxman, 2004) According to Taura & Nagai (2013) there are two types of methodological support techniques have been developed for concept generation,: the visual method and linguistic method. The visual method type is usually based on visual and spatial cognition using imagery resources or graphical media (Nakakoji & Yamamoto, (2001), including 3-dimensional design and virtual information (Parka et al., 2008). The visual method is thought to be effective in assisting a designer’s image aspect of concept (Taura & Nagai, 2013) The linguistic method is based on language and uses lexicon technology (Chiu & Shu, 2007); it is supposed to contribute more towards activating concept generation at the abstract level, such as the meanings or social values of a product. Both types are considered useful for accelerating or efficiently driving concept generation.To specify what concept generation is, Taura & Nagai (2013) classify the process into two phases—the problem–driven phase and inner sense–driven phase—according to the following two factors: the basis of the concept generation and ability which enables the concept generation to proceed. ( see Fig.1) They define the problem–driven phase as the process of generating a new concept (solution) on the basis of the problem, the new concept (solution) can usually be obtained by analyzing the problem . The inner sense–driven phase is defined as the process of generating a new concept on the basis of the inner sense for pursuing an ideal. When an ideal is explicitly expressed, the ideal may become a ‘goal’ in the problem–driven phase. In the actual design process, these two phases do not work independently; instead, they realize the design process complementarily.

Figure 1. The two phases in concept generation. (Taura & Nagai, 2013, p.15)

As depicted before, design process is a thinking process and concept generation happens throughout this mental process. The meanings of design thinking involve the mental plan for something followed by the creation of forms. This conceptualization process is about an activity that has visual and verbal dimensions, the coordinated use of drawing and language as the representation systems also refers to the main character of the design process (Taura & Nagai, 2013) . And also it is among the subjects requiring special emphasis in respect of design and learning processes. So this process is so important to be developed in a design studio. In order to make a comprehensible definition for conceptualization four most referred methods in literature are analyzed .As one of the most cited and reliable method Think-Maps; emphasizes the pedagogical role of knowing how to analyze and structure new information in order to be able to build a relational structure of relevant knowledge and to use the knowledge in other contexts (Oxman (2004). Also it is introduced as a cognitive-based pedagogical framework in which the construction of conceptual structures is exploited through computational modeling. (Oxman, 2004) . Oxman (2004) submit two testing techniques ; web-pad and ICF (Issue–Concept–Form) in order to identify and represent individual components of design knowledge in a design in order that larger bodies of knowledge can be created from individual cases through a process of network construction. She propose web pad computational program in order to evaluate the findings of ICF (Issue–Concept–Form) schemata. ICF schemata focus on the conceptual knowledge embedded within prior design cases. The knowledge entities are the issue, the design concept and the form of solution as described below:

Issue: The design issues are related to the design tasks that are deliberated by the designer. It offers a convenient term to identify particular points in design problems.

Concept: The design concept is the formulation of an opinion in relation to a design issue or a design sub-issue. It is an abstract form of ideation related to the design task.

Form: The form is the specific design artifact that materializes the solution principle. It is important to note that this is one element of the total building design that directly relates to the design issue or sub-issue.

By linking the three knowledge entities (issue, concept and form), different idea entities are connected to each other . Cross-contextual linking permits an idea entity in one design case to be cross-linked with another idea

entity in other design cases. (Oxman, 1994). in order to make it clear Oxman give an example for utilization of this technique. She declared that ;

`students were instructed to analyze significant written references related to precedents. They were required to draw a set of inferences and organize them in such a way that the resulting knowledge base might be structured to represent a significant relationship of ideas in museum design. Theyillustrate the analysis task employing the ICF methodology. they encode the conceptual design knowledge presented in original textual descriptions and critical interpretations of the Mediatheque in Nimes, France designed by Sir Norman Foster. ` (2004, p.81)

After making an analyze of the written text about the design approaches of Norman Foster `s Mediatheque in Nimes, France, they developed a conceptual map from the knowledge that was extracted from the texts. ( see Figure 2). This is accomplished through content analysis of design issues, concepts, forms, and cognitive abstractions such as metaphors and analogies.

Figure 2.Example of and ICF structure ( An ICF structure of the Mediatheque designed by Norman Foster. (Oxman, 2004, p.76) On the other hand, Nagai, Taura, & Mukai (2009) propose the concept-synthesizing process method that involves typical important concept generation processes: property mapping, concept blending, and concept integrating . They define the process considered to be a concept creation method involving the transfer of some features from an existing concept to another concept. The advantage of this process is that it is the simplest and most essential process for generating a new concept from existing ones. Nagai, Taura, & Mukai (2009) gives an example of the invention of the art knifed the first snap-off blade cutterd an appropriate one. ( Figure 3) The inspiration for this original idea stemmed from the synthesis of two concepts, namely, chocolate segments that can be broken off and the sharp edges of broken glass . Researhers divide this evaluation process into three phases. they define 1st primitive of the concept-synthesizing process is ‘concept abstraction,’ and its principle is ‘similarity’ in ‘taxonomical relations.’ 2nd primitive being ‘concept blending,’ in which the principle is ‘similarity’ and ‘dissimilarity’ in ‘taxonomical relations’, and the 3rd primitive being ‘concept integration’ and with the principle of ‘thematic relations’. They define these concepts and thinking process for blended at least two basic concepts at an abstract level and a new concept that inherits some abstract features of the two base concepts but concrete features of neither are generated. For example, ‘design something by combining the concepts of a musical instrument and a dress,’ where the design result could be a guitar, the outside and sound of which can be changed to suit the surroundings like changing a dress, or a melody costume, that is, a wearable musical instrument. (Nagai et al., 2009).

Figure 3. Design idea for an art knife by combining two concepts broken glass and chocolate segments (Nagai etal., 2009, p.651)

Analogy is a mapping made between the features of these concepts, principles and formulas. Analogies are useful and effective tools that are used for primary education students to keep information in their minds as meaningful wholes . Analogies are descriptions used for comprehension of new information. In other words, analogies are used for creating new information that takes place in long term memory (Lawson, 1993; cited in Morenoet.al.,2014). Design-by-Analogy is an area that seeks to assist designers in identifying and developing examples, related cases and scenarios, and connected experiences (i.e., analogies) to solve design problems ( Moreno, et al., (2014), Goldschmidt (2001), Casakin & Goldschmidt (1999), Linsey et al., (2007). Design-by-Analogy is a potentially powerful tool in idea generation (ideation), in a number of knowledge domains .The use of analogy entails the transfer of relational information from a known situation (usually referred to as source or base), to a situation that needs explanation (referred to as target), where at least one of the related elements is not known (Casakin & Goldschmidt, 1999). Analogical reasoning can occur with picture, word, or sentence clues. As designers deal with visual features more than others (Bilda & Gero, 2004;), analyzing the impact of picture clues, rather than word and sentence clues, on design students’ creative thinking ability emerges as a more important question (Cubukcu & Cetintahra, 2010) . Cubukcu and Dundar (2010) tested whether novice students developed more creative solutions for design problems in a basic design studio by using analogical reasoning. First-year design students were asked to design compositions using three basic geometric forms; square, triangle, and circle, to convey the expression of eight design concepts; such as harmony, contrast, unity, and asymmetrical balance. For half of the design concepts, visual clues were given, for the other half visual clues were not given. The results showed affirmative effects of analogical reasoning for novice students. Contemporary theories define “metaphors” as devices that aid in structuring our thoughts. Metaphors influence how we perceive the world, classify experiences, and guide our reasoning. These tools can help reflect, understand, and solve a problem from new and unconventional perspectives. For these reasons, metaphors play a critical role in the “design” domain, where they not only contribute to organize design thinking, but also have the potential to enhance “creativity.” Another characteristic is that they allow designers to think unconventionally and encourage the application of original ideas to design problems. (Casakin, 2011)Metaphors used in the design field typically serve to generate new ideas, solve problems, and stimulate creativity (Casakin, 2007). The relevance of metaphors to problem-solving is relevant to three fundamental steps (Gentner et al., 2001)). The first step consists of extracting a variety of unfamiliar concepts from remote domains, where possible relationships with the problem at hand are not always evident. The second step involves establishing a mapping of deep or high-level relationships between the metaphorical concept and the problem. Correspondences are identified by means of abstractions and generalizations. Relationships of secondary importance are discarded, and only structural correspondences between the metaphorical source and the problem are set up. The last step deals with transferring and applying structural correspondences associated with the metaphorical source to the problem at hand, which at the end generally leads to a novel solution. Metaphors are strong thinking devices that architects in professional realm, utilizing this device in design process. For example the architects Leon and Rob Krier - who proposed a rational design approach based on the use of immutable principles derived from the concept of typology and urban experience. (Casakin,2011) Another celebrated architect that uses metaphors is Mies van der Rohe. His memorable metaphor 'less is more' makes reference to the engineering idea of reducing architectural design to its minimal and basic nature. The application of metaphor in his work was achieved by means of reducing spatial dimensions to the minimum habitable, eliminating unnecessary materials and decoration, as well as designing simple but not simplistic details. In design education, metaphors are seen pedagogical tool that can help students overcame problem solving difficulties. This approach helped to expose previously unseen relationships between the design problem and other remote domains and allowed students to learn more about their own design thinking capabilities. The use of metaphors in these earlier phases of the design process, also known as conceptual design, showed to be so effective that the development of expertise did not add any further significant improvement to design performance. Casakin (2011) suggested that novices, who are not always able to make abstractions to identify relevant information to the design problem, whose design knowledge structures are not well formed, and who have no design principles available can particularly profit from metaphorical reasoning in this stage of the process. In the experienced group of students, metaphors were found to be more helpful and less difficult to use in the later stages concerned with mapping, transfer, and application of structural relationships to the design problem.All these approaches covers cognitive strategies that assist in the organization of design thinking. They frame designers in defining the design problem . They all are cognitive tools help students to overcome problem solving difficulties and also help to stimulate creativity in design activities . But as mentioned before every level

of students have different knowledge skill. Therefore in order to develop a teaching strategy student knowledge acquisition level must be considered.

3. Developing Knowledge Skills in Design Education As depicted earlier teaching strategies in design studios needed to be developed based on the students knowledge level. In these kind of studies Dreyfus and Dreyfus (1980) five-stage developmental model of skills acquisition model is one of the most frequently referred one. Their method consists in analyzing and systematizing descriptions of changes in the perception of the task environment reported by performers in the course of acquiring complex skills. (Dreyfus & Dreyfus, 1980). They declared that the account of skill acquisition which follows, concrete experience plays a paramount role. They define five stages of level of skills: novice, competence, proficiency, expertise and mastery. Their model of skill acquisition, based on cognitive psychology, ‘consists in analyzing and systematizing descriptions of changes in the perception of the task environment in the course of acquiring complex skills. (Curry, 2014). Based on Hubert and Stewart Dreyfus (1980) ` developmental model of skills acquisition` Curry (2014) established a model indicates that education of a novice student is different from the expert one. The main idea of Hubert and Stewart Dreyfus (1986)`s developmental model of skills acquisition is about the nature of the problem being considered (how it is framed) is dependent on the level of expertise of the problem solver. (Curry, 2014, p.641). Furthermore he propose a version of this model and adapted for learning to design, based on and in consideration of the principles and insights: novice as preferring to emphasize domain/ conceptual knowledge when approaching design problems, , advanced beginner as having acquired a functional level of conceptual/declarative knowledge begin to be able to see the problem and discover research based, competence as able to see the problem and engage in the see, frame, move, reframe process, proficiency as acquires the skills, domain/conceptual knowledge and procedures and lastly expertise as dependency on tacit knowledge (declarative/conceptual/procedural) and an embodied sense of ‘knowing what to do’. (Curry, 2014). On the other hand Wrigley & Straker (2015) suggest `The Educational Design Ladder` model that illustrate the pedagogical stages in the development of Design Thinking. They define the aim of the ladder is to stage the delivery of Design Thinking content and to progressively guide students to the final step, where professional and personal development and design leadership are the focus. By working through this five-step model, students gain the knowledge and skills to apply design thinking to a range of different contexts and projects. Based on Curry (2014) and (Wrigley & Straker, 2015) researches table 1 is developed which can be considered as very important determination tool for developing a teaching strategy in a design studio. This table is structured by outlining – for each of the five steps – the type of knowledge acquired (that is, factual, conceptual, procedural or metacognitive); the theme or topic that is the focus of the teaching/learning, the topic, theme/topic being taught/learned; teaching/learning modes and processes; and assessment examples. this determination chart would help to purpose a conceptual teaching strategy and assessment tool utilized in a design studio in the later chapter of this study.

4. Synthesis This section covers a comparative analysis of conceptualization approaches with content of design studio and students knowledge skill levels. In this section assessment tools related to concept development that can be utilized in a design studio are determined (see Table 2). It is believed that design education can be greatly enhanced by the introduction of developmentally appropriate conceptualization tool as a teaching strategy. In table2, four conceptualization approaches, which are the proper tools that can be utilized for a concept generation method in design teaching , are described with their purpose. Also the assessment tools are illustrated for each one with the proper level of expertise. Think-Map method that can be applied with ICF schemata in a studio is approved as the proper method for the novice and advanced beginner designers . Because novice ( fist year design student) have learning skills who starts to explore fundamental design elements and principles . in this stage concept generation is so important and verbal stimuli is the most powerful tool for novices ., where ICF schemata mainly focuses on the verbal analysis of a design .( see (Oxman,2004). Also this method could be useful for advanced beginner design students ( second year design students) who are capable of visualization and evolve design theoretical and practical aspects of design. they can develop the ability to analyze textual material and to extract from it significant inferences that can be useful. they have to choose associated issues, concepts and forms that are relevant and should be stored for exploitation in a future design. Concept development in is also important part of advanced beginner levels education. This method is practical because it fosters the ability to develop conceptual content in designs Idea generation.

As the second method concept-synthesizing process approved as concept creation method involving the transfer of some features from an existing concept to another concept. (Nagai et al., 2009) describe this process in three steps which starts with ‘concept abstraction,’ than it continues with ‘concept blending, and last with ‘concept integration’ . these steps are the description of the idea development which could be performed with mind-mapping techniques which is a visual diagram used to record and organize information in a way which the brain finds captivating and easy to process. (ThinkBuzan , 2010). Unlike linear methods for recording information, a Mind Map doesn’t rely on large amounts of written text but instead uses lines, symbols, key words, colour and images all according to simple, brain-friendly concepts. The technique was invented and popularized by author and ‘brain expert’ Tony Buzan in the 1970s and is now used by millions of people worldwide – in business, at school or at home (ThinkBuzan , 2010)

Table 1. Steps and content of Design Studio ( adapted from (Wrigley & Straker, 2015) and (Curry, 2014)

Step 1 (first-year design student)(Novices)

2 (second-year design student)(advanced beginner

3 (third-year design student)competence

4 (fourth-year design student)(proficiency)

5 (fifth-year design student)- (master level in fourth year design education)(Expertise )

Knowledge Factual Conceptual Conceptual Procedural MetacognitiveLearning skills abstract,

disembodiedform and space exercises: emphasis on plan for m and functional considerations.

emphasis on plan,section, elevation, form and site: minimal concernfor technical issues such as structure, materialsand systems: relatively

complex program requirements and use types,consideration of structure, systems and materials:producing a whole idea for a building.

highly complex building types/program requirements,integrating structure, systems, materials,environmental, and other issues

self-directedlearning: exploring architectural ideas

Learningmodes

Lectures, tutorials,design charrette, groupwork, lectures, tutorials,online modules,discussions, paneldiscussion, case studies

Shortcollaborativedesign projects,workshops,lectures, tutorials,field study,individual andgroup challenges

Workshops,partner withindustry sponsors,lectures, tutorials,course readings

Workshops,industry projects,tutorials, studyvisits, onlineclass discussions,group activities,individualresearch, self-directedlearning

Work integratedlearning, digitallectures, onlinediscussion,independentresearch, Skype,blog posts, wikis,peer coaching

Design teaching strategy

Reflection, ideation,design process, designhistory, defining design,creative thinking (ideageneration), groupdynamics, wickerproblems, designcontexts, visualization,experimentation,prototyping

Idea generation,user focus,concepts,aesthetics,communicatingvisually, iterateand evolvedesign theoreticaland practicalaspects of design,sketching, formand function

New productdesign anddevelopment,projectmanagement,marketingresearch, marketidentification andrequirements,opportunitymapping,scenario planning,capital andvariable costs,environmentalrequirements

Strategicdesign, businessframeworks,service design,comparativeanalyses ofbusinessopportunities,brandingstrategies, brandmanagement,businessplans, budgetsand financialmanagement

Integrateprinciples of clientservice provision,advertising,marketing,leadership,competitivethreats, innovativeconcepts, changemanagement,innovation,entrepreneurship,reflective practice,and professionaldevelopment

Assessment Analysis of designprocess, designingresearch journalreflective essay activeparticipation

Design projects.Written and oral,individual andgroup designactivities

Oral Exam, projectplan, researchjournal, intensiveexperimentationand project work,reflective essay

Businessplans, pitches,business strategysimulation,exams, discussiononline, blogs,workbooks,reflective essay

Reports,group work,presentations,critiques, solveindustry-basedproblems,business reports,class participation

Mento et al (1999) affirm that Mind Mapping is a powerful cognitive tool which can be used in a variety of ways because of its ability to evoke associative and non-linear thinking. (Mento et al., 1999) . Based on a scientific report about Mind mapping techniques evidence shows that Mind Mapping offers a powerful system for learning. It harnesses visual appeal through color, symbols and images, and encourages students to make sense out of ideas by constructing them in meaningful ways. This makes it ideal for promoting active learning, fostering motivation, improving confidence, and for supporting a diverse range of learning styles and levels of ability. hence, this method utilized in most design thinking research in educational setting. (Kokotovich, 2008)(Austin et al., 2001). and this method is convenient to novice students that comprise and focused on only concept generation by using abstraction , blending and integration.

Table 2. Comparison of conceptualization approaches and Level of Expertise

Concept Generation Approaches Purpose of the approach

Assessment tools Level of Expertise

Think-Maps(oxman,2004)

conceptual mapping of design ideas can be constructed into larger structures.

Utilize for to analyze and structure new information in order to be able to build a relational structure of relevant knowledge

ICF Schemata ( Issue, concept and form schemata (Oxman, 2004)

Novice, Advanced Beginners ( first and second year design students)

concept-synthesizing process (Nagai et al., 2009)

transfer of some features from an existing concept to another concept.

concept creation method involving the transfer of some features from an existing concept to another concept.

Mind-mapping( Tony Buzan,1970,Kokotovich, (2008) , Austin et al., (2001)

Novice Students(first-year design students

‘Design-by-Analogyvisual analogy’ (Analogical reasoningCasakin & Goldschmidt (1999) Goldschmidt, 2001).

the transfer of relational information from a known situation (usually referred to as source or base), to a situation that needs explanation (referred to as target), where at least one of the related elements is not known.

creating new information that takes place in long term memory

Biomimicry Design (Macnab,2012) (Bakirlioglu, 2012)

All levels of students

Metaphor

(Casakin, 2011) (Casakin, 2007) (Gulari, 2015)

cognitive strategy that strongly encourages the formation of new knowledge based on acts of personal interpretation

enable the structuring of a problem situation from a novel perspective that is particularly important for creative activities like design

Metaphorical Reasoning

(Casakin, 2011)Novice, Advanced Beginners ( first and second year design students)

As the third method analogy is one the most referenced method in design education.(see (Casakin &Goldschmidt, 1999) (Cubukcu & Cetintahra, 2010) (Gero & Kazakov, 1998) (Linsey et al., 2007) (Moreno et al.,2014) (Ozkan & Dogan, 2013). it is useful and effective tool that is used for primary education students to keep information in their minds as meaningful wholes . In their studies Casakin & Goldschmidt (1999) conducted an experiment on novice students and experts , in order to find out whether, and how, the use of visual analogy can improve design problem-solving by both novice and expert designers. Their results indicate that the use of visual analogy improves the quality of design across the board, but is particularly significant in the case of novice designers. They declared that novices are usually not aware of their utility in the process of solving problems. Instructions to use a fruitful strategy like visual analogy allows even novices to significantly improve their performance. Novice designers do not need to be taught how to use analogy: they already have this cognitive capacity. They do need, however, to be shown how and why it can be helpful to harness this ability for successful design problem-solving. (Casakin & Goldschmidt, 1999). so we can conclude that analogy is a

thinking style which can be comprehended by anyone in an appropriate knowledge level and cannot be teachable only shown how it can be useful for a design problem solving. In literature it is detected that `Biomimicry Design` is commonly referred and relevant assessment tool for visual analogy. Biomimicry, which can be translated as ‘learning the best opinions of nature by imitating them’, started to be considered as a new science by materializing the ‘possible solutions and solution potential in nature’, and in fact materializing disciplines with an interaction that gathers them together. (Tavsan et al., 2015) The integration of biomimicry into the design process assumes two main approaches. (Bakirlioglu, 2012). It is a way to defining a behavior or function in nature and transform it into a design. Macnab (2012) has influential studies about this method and explains the thinking skills in a sequence. ( see Figure 4) .As it is clear in figure 4. the design process starts with discovering which includes looking at natural processes and organisms . The second step abstracting is finding the repeating patterns and processes within nature that achieves success. Then the third step brainstorming is the analysis of the inspiration sources . Then emulating is a developing ideas and solutions step which is based on natural models. Evaluating as the last move is the comparison of the ideas developed to life's principles. (Bakirlioglu, 2012). Utilization of this method in design studios are based on biological analogues that are matched with human identified design problems are that the fundamental approach to solving a given problem (see (Bakirlioglu, 2012) (Tavsan et al., 2015) (Cheong & Shu, 2013). (Wan Omar et al., 2015). This method is chosen as one of the most effective analogy method that could be used in design studios. By the help of the definitions above this method can be used in all levels of design studios, on every knowledge level of students even on expert architects. Because analogy is a central concept in human cognition and have a power to trigger creative thoughts based on form, process and environment. based on goal of analogy, also the research results of Casakin & Goldschmidt (1999), this method is proper to first-year (novice) design students. they affirmed that novices are usually not aware of their utility in the process of solving problems. this kind of method allows novices to significantly improve their performance.

Figure 4. Biomimicry Design Spiral -Biology to Design ( reproduced from Macnab,2012; cited in (Bakirlioglu,2012, p.24)

As the last method , metaphor is the other most referred concept development method in design thinking .( see (Casakin, 2011) (Casakin, 2007) (Gentner et al., 2001) (Gulari, 2015) (Hey et al., 2008) According to (Casakin, 2007) the use of metaphors in design can help students reflect over a problem situation under an innovative point of view. From a cognitive point of view, metaphors are considered as a valuable problem solving strategy. Casakin (2007) also found that the use of metaphors has important implications for design practice. The use of metaphors can help to stimulate creativity in design activities and also can help students reflect over a problem situation under an innovative point of view. (Casakin, 2011) Instead of re-using known design schemas and familiar solutions, the implementation of metaphors in practice can contribute to unconventional thinking and thereby generate more innovative design products. The empirical studies about metaphoric reasoning in design studio generally focused on utilizing opposing concepts like, open vs. closed, or public vs. private. This kind of approach helped students revealing the relationships between the design problem and other remote domains and restructure design problems anew. (Hey et al., (2008) investigated metaphorical thinking in engineering design, also found metaphors to be more efficient in the earlier stages of the process than in the later ones. based on these definitions , this method could be utilized in all levels of design studio. Casakin (2001) asserted in his study that metaphorical reasoning in novices who cannot be able to make abstractions , who have no design principles can profit from `metaphorical reasoning in conceptualization process. He also pointed out that in the experienced group of students, metaphors were

found to be more helpful and less difficult to use in the later stages concerned with mapping, transfer, and application of structural relationships to the design problem`. Utilization of all these methods may contribute to gaining autonomy in design intentions, bridging the critical gap between the conceptual/abstract design phase as well as helping students to gain a better understanding of the design process .

5. Conclusion Design studio is a cognitive thinking process and is structured by generating new ideas, discussion about them, transforming, analyses , synthesis and so many mental actions. Design process is not a linear path, it is a intuitional cyclical process that comprise complex mental moves. Within this complex structure , it is easy to claim that design education is also not a single structure that is focused on a single dimension and uniform teaching/learning process. Design thinking in design studio is a cognitive process can be described by two main stages : conceptualization ( idea development) and concretion ( representations: mass/ form/, utilizing concept) . These stages comprise mental synthesis, transformations and exemplar retrievals like; abstraction, implication. in order to develop design knowledge these mental moves and concept generation process must be the focus of a design studio . The role of studio instructor in creating an organizational style in studio education is the subject of investigation in order to develop creative thinking strategies. A studio approach should cover a curriculum that provides medium for teach how to think and create new ideas depending on different cognitive styles and also accurate to knowledge level of the students instead of using clichés and existing templates. There is a need for the development of accurate teaching approaches that could better lead students through the process. In order to develop new and creative approaches in teaching, design concept generation must be the main subject to focus on. This study presents a theoretical basis to encourage the strategic use of conceptualization as teaching strategies in the design studio which developed based on the students knowledge level. The conceptualization methods in literature that can be utilized in a design studio are investigated and each methods are associated to the students knowledge levels, and design studio contents. Studies about design teaching in literature frequently mention about the appropriate approach for each of studio levels and there is no study directly covers the conceptualization methods related to students knowledge level. For this reason this study presents a comparative analysis of teaching methods described with assessment tools and relation to students knowledge levels. This kind of study is supposed to be a guide for an experimental study focused on new teaching approach in design education.

REFERENCESAustin, S. et al., 2001. Mapping the conceptual design activity of interdisciplinary teams. Design Studies, pp.211–32.Bakirlioglu, Y., 2012. Biomimicry For Sustainability :An Educational Project in Sustainable Product Design. [Online] Ankara, Turkiye: Middle East Technical University Available at: https://etd.lib.metu.edu.tr/upload/12614721/index.pdf [Accessed 2 May 2016].Casakin, H.P., 2007. Metaphors in Design Problem Solving: Implications for Creativity. International Journal of Design, pp.21-33.Casakin, H., 2011. Metaphorical Reasoning And Design Expertise: A Perspective For Design Education. Journal of Learning Design, pp.29-38.Casakin, H. & Goldschmidt, G., 1999. Expertise and the use of visual analogy: Implications for design education. Design Studies, pp.153–75.Cheong, H. & Shu, L.H., 2013. Using templates and mapping strategies to support analogical transfer in biomimetic design. Design Studies, pp.706-28.Chiu, I. & Shu, L., 2007. Using language as related stimuli for concept generation. AI EDAM, pp.103–21. doi:10.1017/S0890060407070175.Cross, N., 2006. Designerly Ways of Knowing. London: Springer-Verlag.Cross, N., 2011. Design Thinking. Great Britain: Bloomsbury Academic.Cubukcu, E. & Cetintahra, G.E., 2010. Does Analogical Reasoning With Visual Clues Affect Novice and Experienced Design Students' Creativity? Creativity Research Journal, pp.337-44.Curry, T., 2014. A theoretical basis for recommending the use of design methodologies as teaching strategies in the design studio. Design Studies, pp.632-46.Dogan, F., 2013. Architectural Design Students' Explorations through Conceptual Diagrams. The Design Journal, pp.103-24.Dreyfus, S.E. & Dreyfus, H.L., 1980. A Five-Stage Model Of The Mental Activities. [Online] University of California , Berkeley Available at: http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA084551 [Accessed 10 May 2016].

Eastman, C.M., 1999. Special issue on Desofn Education. Design Studies, pp.99-103.Ek, S.C. & Ipek, F., 2010. Conceptualization by Visual and Verbal Representations: An Experience in an Architectural Design Studio. The Design Journal, pp.329-54.Ferreira, J., Christiaans, H. & Almendra, R., 2016. A visual tool for analysing teacher and student interactions in a design studio setting. CoDesign.Gentner, D., Bowdle, B., Wolff, P. & Boronat, C., 2001. Metaphor is like analogy. In The analogical mind: Perspectives from cognitive science. 201st ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: D. Gentner, K. J. Holyoak, & B. N. Kokinov. pp.199- 253.Gero, J. & Kannengiesser, U., 2008. An ontological account of Donald Schon's reflection in designing. International Journal of Design Sciences and Technology, pp.77-90.Gero, J.S. & Kazakov, V., 1998. Using analogy to extend the behaviour state space in Design. In Gero, J.S. & Maher, M. Computational models of creative Design IV. Sydney, Australia: University of Sydney. pp.113-43.Goldschmidt, G., 2001. Visual analogy—A strategy for design reasoning and learning. In C. Eastman, W.N.&.M.M. Design knowing and learning: Cognition in design education. New York: Elsevier. pp.199–219.Gonc, M., Cardoso, C. & Badke-Schaub, P., 2014. What inspires designers?Preferences on inspirational approaches during idea generation. Design Studies, pp.29-53.Gulari, M.N., 2015. Metaphors in Design: How We Think of Design Expertise. Journal of Research Practice, pp.1-18.Hey, J., Linsey, J., Agogino, A.M. & Wood, K.L., 2008. Analogies and Metaphors in Creative Design. Int. J. Engng Ed., pp.283-94.Howard-Jones, D.P., 2008. Fostering creative thinking:co-constructed insights from neuroscience and education. [Online] Available at: http://www.cumbria.ac.uk/Public/Education/Documents/Research/EducatorsStorehouse/SharingIdeas/FosteringCreativeThinking.pdf [Accessed 1 May 2016].Kahvecioglu, P.N., 2007. Architectural design studio organization and creativity. ITU A|Z, pp.6-26.Kokotovich, V., 2008. Problem analysis and thinking tools: an empirical study of non-hierarchical mind mapping. Design Studies, pp. 49-69.Kokotovich, V., 2008. Problem analysis and thinking tools: an empirical study of non-hierarchical mind mapping. Design Studies, pp.49-69.Kowaltowski, D.C.C.K., Bianchi, G. & Paiva, V.T.d., 2010. Methods that may stimulate creativity and their use in architectural design education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, pp.453–76.Kurtoglu, T., Campbell, M.I. & Linsey, J.S., 2009. An experimental study on the effects of a computational design tool on concept generation. Design Studies, pp.676-703.Lai, I.-C. & Chang, T.-W., 2006. A distributed linking system for supporting idea association during the conceptual design stage. Design Studies, pp.685-710.Lee, J.S. & Jirousek, C., 2015. The development of design ideas in the early apparel design process: a pilot study.Lee, J.S. & Jirousek, C., 2015. The development of design ideas in the early apparel design process: a pilot study. International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and Education, pp.151-61. DOI: 10.1080/17543266.2015.1026411.Linsey, J. et al., 2007. Effects of analogous product representation on design-by-analogy. In International conference on engineering design. Paris: France., 2007. ICED’07.Macnab, M., 2012. Design by Nature. New Riders: Berkeley.Mento, A., Martinelli, P. & R., J., 1999. Mind Mapping in Executive Education: Applications and Outcomes. The Journal of Management Development, pp.390 - 416.Moreno, D.P. et al., 2014. Fundamental studies in Design-by-Analogy:A focus on domain-knowledge experts andapplications to transactional design problems. Design Studies, pp.232-72.Nagai, Y. & Taura, T., 2006. Formal Description of Concept-Synthesizing Process For Creative Design. In Gero, J.S. Design Computing and Cognition’06. Dordrecht: Springer.Nagai, Y., Taura, T. & Mukai, F., 2009. Concept blending and dissimilarity:factors for creative concept generation process. Design Studies, pp.648-75.Nakakoji, K. & Yamamoto, Y., 2001. Nakakoji K, Yamamoto Y (2001) What does the representation talk-back to you? Knowl Base Sys, pp.449–53. doi:10.1016/S0950-7051(01)00139-3.Nikander, J.B. & Liikkanen, L.A., 2014. The preference effect in design concept evaluation. Design Studies, pp.473-99.Oxman, R.E., 1994. Precedents in design: a computational model for the organization of precedent knowledge. Design Studies, pp.141-57.

Oxman, R., 2001. The Mind in Design:A Conceptual Framework for Cognition in Design Education. In Eastman, C.M., McCracken, W.M. & Newstetter, W.C. Design Knowing and Learning: Cognition in Design Education. USA: Elsevier. pp.269-95.Oxman, R., 2004. Think-maps: teaching design thinking in design education. Design Studies, pp.63–91.Ozkan, O. & Dogan, F., 2013. Cognitive strategies of analogical reasoning in design: Differences between expert and novice designers. Design Studies, pp.161-92.Parka, H., Sona, J. & Leeb, K., 2008. Design evaluation of digital consumer products using virtual reality-based functional behaviour simulation. J Eng Des, pp.359–75.Pupo, R. et al., 2007. Design Teaching Method Using Shape Grammars. [Online] Prana,Breazil Available at: http://www.exatas.ufpr.br/portal/docs_degraf/artigos_graphica/ADESIGN.pdf [Accessed 16 April 2016].Rittel, H. & Webber, M.M., 1973. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, pp.155-69.Ruedi, K., 1996. Architectural education and the culture of simulation: history against the grain’. In Teymur, A.H.a.N. Architectural History and the Studio. London : ?uestion Press. pp.109–18.Schön, D., 1984. The architectural studio as an exemplar of education for reflection-in-action. Journal of Architectural Education, pp.2–9.Self, J. & Pei, E., 2014. Reflecting on Design Sketching: Implications for ProblemFraming and Solution-focused Conceptual Ideation. Archives of Design Research, pp.65-87.Taura, T. & Nagai, Y., 2013. Perspectives on Concept Generation and Design Creativity. In Taura, T. & Nagai, Y. Concept Generation for Design Activity: A Systematized Theory and Methodolgy. Verlag-London: Springer. pp.9-20.Tavsan, C., Tavsan, F. & Sonmez, E., 2015. Biomimicry in Architectural Design Education. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, pp.489-96.ThinkBuzan , 2010. Mind Mapping: Scientific Research and Studies. [Online] ThinkBuzan Ltd. Available at: http://b701d59276e9340c5b4d-ba88e5c92710a8d62fc2e3a3b5f53bbb.r7.cf2.rackcdn.com/docs/Mind%20Mapping%20Evidence%20Report.pdf [Accessed 22 May 2016].Tovey, M. & Porter, S., 2003. Sketching, concept development and automotive design. Design Studies, pp.135–53.Uluoglu, B., 2000. Design knowledge communicated in studio critiques. Design Studies, 21, pp.33–58.Verner, I.M. & Maor, S., 2005. Mathematical aspects of educating architecture designers: a college study. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, pp.655-71.Waks, L.J., 1999. Reflective practice in the design studio and teacher education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31(3), pp.303-16. DOI: 10.1080/002202799183142.Wan Omar, W.N.F., KAA, R. & Abdullah, M.F.A., 2015. Analysis of Students Design Activities Towards Biommicry Conceptual Design. Alam Cipta.Ward, F., Smith, S.M. & Finke, R.A., 1999. Creative Cognition. In Sternberg, R. Handbook of Creativity. USA: Cambridge University Press. pp.189-212.Wrigley, C. & Straker, K., 2015. Design Thinking pedagogy: the Educational Design Ladder. Innovations in Education and Teaching International.Yilmaz, S., 2016. Feedback in concept development: Comparing design disciplines. Design Studies 45 (2016) 137e158, pp.137-58.Zari, M.P., 2007. Biomimetic Approaches to Architectural Design for Increased Sustainability. [Online] Auckland Available at: http://www.cmnzl.co.nz/assets/sm/2256/61/033-PEDERSENZARI.pdf [Accessed 23 May 2016].