Volume 21, Issue 2

Abstract

Interior space modelling as part of simulation technology is crucial to support the study of interior design. Various simulation techniques have been used for spatial modelling, such as manual and digital drawing, while widely used physical interior models are so far made customized to meet a particular form of design. In other words, such space modelling is by nature fixed or not meant to be used for various needs of modelling tasks. As a result, the interior design study process can become difficult for those who are less able to make manual or digital drawings. It may have a psychological impact on the student’s engagement and motivation. This study aimed to examine the role of a previously developed interior space modelling tool in supporting the study process and student engagement. The research method used for this project is an experiment that involves 48 interior design students. The analysis of data reveals that a modelling tool has a significant effect on study engagement for the group of respondents who can only draw but are less able to use a computer to create digital simulations. Meanwhile, for those who have already been able to make a digital simulation, their engagement response to the space modelling tool is less significant.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1386/adch_00055_1
2023-03-16
2024-03-28
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Açici, F. K., and Sönmez, E.. ( 2014;), ‘ The place of hand drawing and computer aided design in interior design education. ’, Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 143, pp. 71620.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Baynes, K.. ( 2010;), ‘ Models of change: The future of design education. ’, Design and Technology Education, 15:3, pp. 1017.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bradecki, T., and Uherek-Bradecka, B.. ( 2017;), ‘ Work models in the design process for house interior and exterior: Physical or virtual?. ’, IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 245:5, p. 052033.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Brandon, L., and McLain-Kark, J.. ( 2001;), ‘ Effects of hand-drawing and CAD techniques on design development: A comparison of design merit ratings. ’, Journal of Interior Design, 27:2, pp. 2634.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bresciani, M. J.,, Oakleaf, M.,, Kolkhorst, F., and Nebeker, C.. ( 2009;), ‘ Examining design and inter-rater reliability of a rubric measuring research quality across multiple disciplines. ’, Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 14:1, pp. 17.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Brocato, K.. ( 2009;), ‘ Studio based learning: Proposing, critiquing, iterating our way to person-centeredness for better classroom management. ’, Theory into Practice, 48:2, pp. 13846.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Cohen, J.. ( 1988), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, New York:: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates;.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Derelov, M.. ( 2009;), ‘ On evaluation of design concepts: Modelling approaches for enhancing the understanding of design solutions. ’, doctoral dissertation, Linköping:: Linköping University.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Düzenli, T.,, Alpak, E. M.,, Çiğdem, A., and Tarakçı, E.. ( 2018;), ‘ The effect of studios on learning in design education. ’, Journal of History Culture and Art Research, 7:2, pp. 191204.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Elmer, R., and Davies, T.. ( 2000;), ‘ Modelling and creativity in design and technology education. ’, in J. K. Gilbert, and C. J. Boulter. (eds), Developing Models in Science Education, Berlin:: Springer;, pp. 13756.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Elzarka, S.. ( 2012;), ‘ Technology use in higher education instruction. ’, CGU theses and dissertations, Claremont, CA:: Claremont Graduate University.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Fredricks, J. A., and McColskey, W.. ( 2012;), ‘ The measurement of student engagement: A comparative analysis of various methods and student self-report instruments. ’, in S. L. Christenson,, A. L. Reschly, and C. Wylie. (eds), Handbook of Research on Student Engagement, Berlin:: Springer;, pp. 76382.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Galford, G.,, Hawkins, S., and Hertweck, M.. ( 2015;), ‘ Problem-based learning as a model for the interior design classroom: Bridging the skills divide between academia and practice. ’, Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 9:2, pp. 114.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Gordon, N.,, Grey, S., and Brayshaw, M.. ( 2015;), ‘ Motivating and engaging students through technology. ’, in J. Hawkins. (ed.), Student Engagement: Leadership Practices, Perspectives and Impact of Technology, Hauppauge, NY:: Nova Science Publishers;, pp. 2543.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Hewson, E. R.. ( 2018;), ‘ Students’ emotional engagement, motivation and behavior over the life of an online course: Reflections on two market research case studies. ’, Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 10:8, pp. 113.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Ibrahim, R., and Rahimian, F. P.. ( 2010;), ‘ Comparison of CAD and manual sketching tools for teaching architectural design. ’, Automation in Construction, 19:8, pp. 97887.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Kirsh, D.. ( 2011;), ‘ Using sketching: To think, to recognize, to learn in a Kantrowitz. ’, in A. Brew, and M. Fava. (eds), Thinking through Drawing: Practice into Knowledge, Proceedings of an Interdisciplinary Symposium on Drawing, Cognition and Education, New York:: Teachers College, Columbia University;, pp. 12325.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Kolb, D. A.. ( 2015;), ‘ Lifelong learning and integrative development. ’, in A. Neidlinger. (ed.), Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development, Upper Saddle River, NJ:: Pearson Education Inc;, pp. 31133.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Kristianova, K.,, Joklova, V., and Meciar, I.. ( 2018;), ‘ Physical models in architectural education and the use of new technologies. ’, in 11th Annual International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation, Seville, Spain, 12–14 November, Seville:: International Academy of Technology, Education and Development;, pp. 217783.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Lin, M. H.,, Chen, H. C., and Liu, K. S.. ( 2017;), ‘ A study of the effects of digital learning on learning motivation and learning outcome. ’, Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13:7, pp. 355364.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. López de Mántaras, R.. ( 2016;), ‘ Artificial intelligence and the arts: Toward computational creativity. ’, Open Mind, pp. 127.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Luschei, T. F.. ( 2014;), ‘ Assessing the costs and benefits of educational technology. ’, in J. M. Spector,, M. D. Merill,, J. Allen, and M. J. Bishop. (eds), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology, New York:: Springer;, pp. 23948.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Mara, E. L.. ( 2017;), ‘ New perspective of learner-centered education in nowadays didactics. ’, MATEC Web of Conferences, 121, pp. 17.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Moate, R. M., and Cox, J. A.. ( 2015;), ‘ Learner-centered pedagogy: Considerations for application in a didactic course. ’, Professional Counselor, 5:3, pp. 37989.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Ollenburg, S. A.. ( 2019;), ‘ A futures-design-process model for participatory futures. ’, Journal of Futures Studies, 23:4, pp. 5162.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Pétervári, J.,, Osman, M., and Bhattacharya, J.. ( 2016;), ‘ The role of intuition in the generation and evaluation stages of creativity. ’, Frontiers in Psychology, 7:1420, pp. 112.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Ritter, S. M., and Dijksterhuis, A.. ( 2014;), ‘ Creativity – the unconscious foundations of the incubation period. ’, Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8:215, pp. 110.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Sachanowicz, T.. ( 2019;), ‘ Creativity and use of physical models in architectural design. ’, IOP Conference Series: Material Science and Engineering, 471, p. 082072.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Shah, J. J.,, Vargas-Hernandez, N.,, Smith, S. M.,, Gerkens, D. R., and Wulan, M.. ( 2003;), ‘ Empirical studies of design ideation: Alignment of design experiments with lab experiments. ’, in ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference, vol. 3, Chicago, IL, USA, 2–6 September, New York:: ASME;, pp. 84756.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Shih, Y. T.,, Sher, W. D., and Taylor, M.. ( 2015;), ‘ Understanding creative design processes by integrating sketching and CAD modelling design environments: A preliminary protocol result from architectural designers. ’, Archnet-IJAR, Special Issue, 9:3, pp. 7692.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. So, C.,, Jun, S., and Nah, K.. ( 2016;), ‘ Configuring time for creativity: How to optimize ideation process in design thinking process. ’, International Journal of Design Management and Professional Practice, 10:4, pp. 112.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Stokholm, M.. ( 2014;), ‘ Problem based learning versus design thinking in team based project work. ’, in International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education: Design Education, University of Twente, the Netherlands, 4–5 September, Aalborg:: Aalborg University;, pp. 26874.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Taura, T., and Nagai, Y.. ( 2017;), ‘ Creativity in innovation design: The roles of intuition, synthesis, and hypothesis. ’, International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation, 5:3&4, pp. 13148.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Tracey, M. W., and Baaki, J.. ( 2014;), ‘ Design, designers, and reflection-in-action. ’, in B. Hokanson, and A. Gibbons. (eds), Design in Educational Technology, Cham, Heidelberg and New York:: Springer;, pp. 113.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Tracey, M. W., and Boling, E.. ( 2014;), ‘ Preparing instructional designers: Traditional and emerging perspectives. ’, in J. M. Spector,, M. D. Merrill,, J. Ellen, and M. J. Bishop. (eds), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology, New York:: Springer;, pp. 65360.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Tyng, C. M.,, Amin, H. U.,, Saad, M. N. M., and Malik, A. S.. ( 2017;), ‘ The influences of emotion on learning and memory. ’, Frontiers in Psychology, 8, p. 1454.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Voulgarelis, H., and Morkel, J.. ( 2010;), ‘ The importance of physically built working models in design teaching of undergraduate architectural students. ’, in Connected 2010: 2nd International Conference on Design Education, Sydney: University of New South Wales;, pp. 19.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Vracheva, V. P.,, Moussetis, R., and Abu-Rahma, A.. ( 2019;), ‘ The mediation role of engagement in the relationship between curiosity and student development: A preliminary study. ’, Journal of Happiness Studies, 2020:21, pp. 152947.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Wardono, P., and Purwono, U.. ( 2020;), ‘ Engaging students using a furniture design modelling tool. ’, International Journal of Design Education, 14:3, pp. 8097.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Zulfiqar, S.,, Zhou, R.,, Asmi, F., and Yasin, A.. ( 2018;), ‘ Using simulation system for collaborative learning to enhance learner’s performance. ’, Cogent Education, 5:1, pp. 114.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Wardono, Prabu, and Maharani, Yuni. ( 2022;), ‘ Physical modelling of interior space as a predictor of student engagement. ’, Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 21:2, pp. 21733, https://doi.org/10.1386/adch_00055_1
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1386/adch_00055_1
Loading
/content/journals/10.1386/adch_00055_1
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Keyword(s): bonding behaviour; education technology; emotion; interior design student; interior simulation; motivation

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed