Toward A Theory of Design Critiquing

............................................................................................................. 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..