............................................................................................................. 16
1.
Introduction................................................................................................ 18
1.1.
Definitions of Terms....................................................................................................22
1.1.1.
Critiquing Methods and Conditions ............................................................................. 22
1.2.
Motivations ..................................................................................................................23
1.2.1.
Lack of Understanding of Design Critiquing................................................................ 23
1.2.2.
Limitations of Computer-based Design Critiquing Systems........................................ 24
1.3.
Research Scope ............................................................................................................25
6 1.4.
Approach and Contributions .......................................................................................27
1.5.
Guide to the Dissertation.............................................................................................28
2.
Computer-based Design Critiquing Systems ............................................29
2.1.
Critiquing Process........................................................................................................ 31
2.2.
Rules.............................................................................................................................32
2.2.1.
Forms of Rules............................................................................................................ 32
2.2.2.
Completeness of Knowledge (Comparative and Analytic Critiquing).......................... 35
2.2.3.
Rule Management....................................................................................................... 37
2.2.4.
End User Rule Authoring ............................................................................................ 41
2.3.
Intervention Techniques..............................................................................................42
2.3.1.
Timing ......................................................................................................................... 43
2.3.2.
Activation..................................................................................................................... 44
2.3.3.
Delivery Types ............................................................................................................ 45
2.3.4.
Communication Modalities .......................................................................................... 49
2.4.
Summary ...................................................................................................................... 51
3.
A Framework for Critiquing Practice in Design Studio ............................54
3.1.
A Process Model of Critiquing ....................................................................................55
3.2.
Fundamental Factors for Context-sensitive Critiquing...............................................57
3.2.1.
Critiquing Settings ....................................................................................................... 58
3.2.1.1.
Desk Crit(iques) ...................................................................................................................................................... 58
3.2.1.2.
Group Crit ............................................................................................................................................................... 59
3.2.1.3.
Interim Review........................................................................................................................................................ 59
3.2.1.4.
Formal (Final) Review ........................................................................................................................................... 60
3.2.1.5.
Informal Interaction............................................................................................................................................... 62
7 3.2.2.
Teacher-student Relationships ................................................................................... 63
3.2.2.1.
Master and Apprentice .......................................................................................................................................... 63
3.2.2.2.
User and Designer .................................................................................................................................................. 65
3.2.2.3.
Peer Critiquing ........................................................................................................................................................ 65
3.2.3.
Communication Modalities .......................................................................................... 66
3.2.3.1.
Speech ...................................................................................................................................................................... 66
3.2.3.2.
Written Comments................................................................................................................................................. 67
3.2.3.3.
Drawing: Graphic Annotation and Image.......................................................................................................... 67
3.2.3.4.
Gesture ..................................................................................................................................................................... 67
3.2.3.5.
Combining Modalities............................................................................................................................................ 68
3.2.4.
Delivery Types ............................................................................................................ 68
3.2.5.
Delivery ....................................................................................................................... 69
3.2.6.
Critiquing Phases ........................................................................................................ 70
3.2.7.
Individual Differences.................................................................................................. 71
3.2.7.1.
Learning Style.......................................................................................................................................................... 71
3.2.7.2.
Spatial Ability .......................................................................................................................................................... 72
3.2.7.3.
Gender, Race, and Culture .................................................................................................................................... 73
3.2.8.
Students’ Knowledge and Experience ........................................................................ 74
3.2.9.
Students’ Response Types ......................................................................................... 74
3.2.10.
Design Artifacts and Learning Goals ........................................................................ 75
3.3.
Summary: A Framework of Critiquing Practice ..........................................................75
4.
Intelligent Tutoring Systems......................................................................80
4.1.
ITS System Architecture .............................................................................................. 81
4.2.
Two Main Approaches of Intelligent Tutoring Systems.............................................83
4.2.1.
Model Tracing Tutors .................................................................................................. 83
8 4.2.2.
Constraint-based Tutors.............................................................................................. 85
4.2.3.
Constraint-based Tutors for Design Critiquing ............................................................ 86
4.3.
Summary ......................................................................................................................88
5.
The Furniture Design Critic.......................................................................89
5.1.
The Program: Why a Computational Model?..............................................................89
5.2.
The domain: Flat-pack Furniture Design ...................................................................90
5.3.
The “5x3” critiquing model: Delivery Types and Communication Modalities..........93
5.4.
An Example from Real Life: Analysis of an Desk Crit Session...................................95
5.5.
Furniture Design Critic: Three Vignettes....................................................................99
5.5.1.
Vignette 1: Ann, a beginner....................................................................................... 103
5.5.2.
Vignette 2: Ben, a knowledgeable designer.............................................................. 106
5.5.3.
Vignette 3: Claire....................................................................................................... 112
5.5.4.
Summary................................................................................................................... 116
6.
A Computational Model of Design Critiquing: How the Furniture Design Critic works ...................................................................................................... 118
6.1.
A Closer Look at the Vignettes ...................................................................................118
6.2.
Vignette 1: Ann........................................................................................................... 122
6.3.
Vignette 2: Ben..................
[1]
Kincho H. Law,et al.
A performance-based approach to wheelchair accessible route analysis
,
2002,
Adv. Eng. Informatics.
[2]
Belkis Uluoǧlu,et al.
Design knowledge communicated in studio critiques
,
2000
.
[3]
Kathryn H. Anthony,et al.
Sex, Stars, and Studios: A Look at Gendered Educational Practices in Architecture
,
1993
.
[4]
Yunwen Ye.
Programming with an Intelligent Agent
,
2003,
IEEE Intell. Syst..
[5]
Elaine Rich,et al.
Stereotypes and User Modeling
,
1989
.
[6]
D. Schoen,et al.
The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action
,
1985
.
[7]
D. Cuff.
Architecture: The Story of Practice
,
1992
.
[8]
Zuhal Ulusoy,et al.
To design versus to understand design: the role of graphic representations and verbal expressions
,
1999
.
[9]
Gerhard Fischer.
Human-computer interaction software: lessons learned, challenges ahead
,
1989,
IEEE Software.
[10]
Bert Bredeweg,et al.
Student Modelling: The Key to Individualized Knowledge-Based Instruction
,
2010,
NATO ASI Series.
[11]
Antonija Mitrovic,et al.
CAPIT: an intelligent tutoring system for capitalisation and punctuation
,
2000,
Proceedings International Workshop on Advanced Learning Technologies. IWALT 2000. Advanced Learning Technology: Design and Development Issues.
[12]
Edmund Ming-Kit Lai,et al.
Intelligent Critic System for Architectural Design
,
1997,
IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng..
[13]
Mark D. Gross,et al.
From critiquing to representational talkback: computer support for revealing features in design
,
1998,
Knowl. Based Syst..
[14]
Stellan Ohlsson,et al.
Learning from Performance Errors.
,
1996
.
[15]
Susan R. Fussell,et al.
How robots can help: communication strategies that improve social outcomes
,
2009
.
[16]
Rohan O'Neil Bailey.
The Digital Design Coach Enhancing Design Conversations in Architectural Education
,
2005
.
[17]
Lin Qiu,et al.
Incremental Authoring of Computer-based Interactive Learning Environments for Problembased Learning
,
2004
.
[18]
Antonija Mitrovic,et al.
NORMIT: a Web-enabled tutor for database normalization
,
2002,
International Conference on Computers in Education, 2002. Proceedings..
[19]
Gerhard Fischer,et al.
A Critic for LISP
,
1987,
IJCAI.
[20]
David Nicol,et al.
Changing Architectural Education : Towards a New Professionalism
,
2005
.
[21]
John R. Anderson,et al.
Learning to Program in LISP
,
1984,
Cogn. Sci..
[22]
Albert T. Corbett,et al.
A Formative Evaluation of the PACT Algebra II Tutor: Support for Simple Hierarchical Reasoning
,
1998,
Intelligent Tutoring Systems.
[23]
Kathryn H. Anthony,et al.
Design Juries on Trial: The Renaissance of the Design Studio
,
1991
.
[24]
Antonija Mitrovic,et al.
Intelligent Tutors for All: The Constraint-Based Approach
,
2007,
IEEE Intelligent Systems.
[25]
Raymond McCall,et al.
Design environments for constructive and argumentative design
,
1989,
CHI '89.
[26]
Marlene Jones,et al.
The State of Student Modelling
,
1994
.
[27]
Antonija Mitrovic,et al.
SQL-Tutor: a preliminary report
,
1997
.
[28]
Jason E. Robbins,et al.
Design Critiquing Systems
,
1998
.
[29]
P. Roach,et al.
Transcription of Prosodic and Paralinguistic Features of Emotional Speech
,
1998,
Journal of the International Phonetic Association.
[30]
E. William East,et al.
SEDAR: Expert Critiquing System for Flat and Low-Slope Roof Design and Review
,
1997
.
[31]
Jason E. Robbins,et al.
Software architecture critics in the Argo design environment
,
1998,
Knowl. Based Syst..
[32]
John R. Anderson,et al.
Cognitive Tutors: Lessons Learned
,
1995
.
[33]
Thomas Edward Dutton,et al.
Voices in Architectural Education: Cultural Politics and Pedagogy
,
1991
.
[34]
Cynthia J. Atman,et al.
A comparison of freshman and senior engineering design processes
,
1999
.
[35]
Linda N. Groat,et al.
Reconceptualizing Architectural Education for a More Diverse Future: Perceptions and Visions of Architectural Students
,
1996
.
[36]
Thomas W. Mastaglio,et al.
The role of critiquing in cooperative problem solving
,
1991,
TOIS.
[37]
Neil T. Heffernan,et al.
Expanding the Model-Tracing Architecture: A 3rd Generation Intelligent Tutor for Algebra Symbolization
,
2008,
Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ..
[38]
Richard Straub.
The Concept of Control in Teacher Response: Defining the Varieties of "Directive" and "Facilitative" Commentary
,
1996
.
[39]
Gerhard Fischer,et al.
Embedding critics in design environments
,
1993,
The Knowledge Engineering Review.
[40]
David F. Redmiles,et al.
Using Critiquing Systems for Inconsistency Detection in Software Engineering Models
,
2003,
SEKE.
[41]
Stellan Ohlsson,et al.
Constraint-Based Student Modeling
,
1994
.
[42]
Raymond McCall,et al.
JANUS: integrating hypertext with a knowledge-based design environment
,
1989,
Hypertext.
[43]
Antonija Mitrovic,et al.
WETAS: A Web-Based Authoring System for Constraint-Based ITS
,
2002,
AH.
[44]
Barry G. Silverman,et al.
Survey of expert critiquing systems: practical and theoretical frontiers
,
1992,
CACM.
[45]
Antonija Mitrovic,et al.
KERMIT: A Constraint-Based Tutor for Database Modeling
,
2002,
Intelligent Tutoring Systems.
[46]
Antonija Mitrovic,et al.
Responding to Free-Form Student Questions in ERM-Tutor
,
2006,
Intelligent Tutoring Systems.
[47]
Barry G. Silverman.
Critiquing Human Error: A Knowledge Based Human-Computer Collaboration Approach
,
1997
.
[48]
Thomas Mastaglio,et al.
User modelling in computer-based critics
,
1990,
Twenty-Third Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
[49]
Raymond McCall,et al.
Making argumentation serve design
,
1991
.
[50]
Wayne Attoe,et al.
Excellent studio teaching in architecture
,
1991
.
[51]
Gerhard Fischer,et al.
CRACK: A CRITIQUING APPROACH TO COOPERATIVE KITCHEN DESIGN
,
1988
.
[52]
Neil T. Heffernan,et al.
Opening the Door to Non-programmers: Authoring Intelligent Tutor Behavior by Demonstration
,
2004,
Intelligent Tutoring Systems.
[53]
Vincent Aleven,et al.
Limitations of Student Control: Do Students Know When They Need Help?
,
2000,
Intelligent Tutoring Systems.
[54]
Bonnie L. Webber,et al.
TraumaTIQ: Online Decision Support for Trauma Management
,
1998,
IEEE Intell. Syst..