Constructing Operational Methods for the Continuous Development of Design Concepts

Abstract

The main focus of this article is to understand the process of how students develop design concepts. By analyzing the process of developing design concepts, and through the results of questionnaires and statistical analysis, key factors are identified to provide teachers with ways to assist students in developing sustainable design concepts in the future. The specific results are as follows. (1) Logical thinking and language expression are necessary factors to achieve excellent design concepts. To achieve this goal, sufficient case analysis, a well-equipped studio space and adequate teaching hours are indispensable. (2) General university students prefer to use models to interpret concepts, while technology university students prefer to use images. (3) In teaching, materials courses and construction courses must be moderately integrated with design courses so that teachers can provide students with more assistance in design teaching. (4) When students verbally explain their design concepts, it can easily lead to misunderstandings by the teacher. (5) About the SDGs, this suggests that there is still room for improvement in promoting them, and it is something that should be taken into account in teaching. Therefore, it is necessary to discuss real design work to gradually improve students’ design skills.

1. Introduction

Architecture can be art or a box that meets the basic needs of human life. Exploring the essence of architecture can be approached from different perspectives, such as function, form, materials, structure, and more. Each perspective can provide unique knowledge, which can be accumulated and applied as methods for future design endeavors. In the design process, inspiration can come from various sources such as the site, environment, culture, history, as well as function. It can also stem from a symbolic representation of a certain meaning. The diversity of design essence is the representation of the diversity of design concepts. Therefore, design concepts can be explored from multiple perspectives, and it is feasible to choose any factor as the inspiration in the learning process. How to assist students in developing design concepts and implementing them into their designs, and then rethinking the relationship between the original design concepts and the completed design, is a challenging issue for many teachers. This can help to ensure that architecture is not just a box for living, but also a means of conveying more design concepts or meanings. This study will focus on analyzing the development process of students’ design concepts, exploring the content of their thoughts in order to understand the most challenging issues they face when dealing with design concepts, and providing teachers with reference for future teaching.

Those carrying out design may face different challenges at different stages, from the initial stage to completion, and each stage requires different solutions. The appropriateness of the different solutions proposed depends on whether the design concept is clear and complete. Archer and Roberts (1992) [1] once said that the essence of design activity is to solve problems, and the process always involves choosing from multiple options. In addition to solving problems, the proposal of design solutions also needs to be supported by design concepts to avoid the oversimplification of solutions. This approach provides learners with a clear step-by-step process. The problems of design are usually complex, and the conditions of the site are usually unique. Creativity is the beginning of becoming involved in design issues. In the cases where most design problems are not clearly defined and cannot be solved by conventional methods, the proposal of a design concept is even more crucial (Gero, 1996; Simon, 2019; Gole, 1995) [2,3,4]. Rittel and Webber (1984) [5] also believed that the most appropriate solution for the future cannot be predicted at the early stages of design. As a result, many different creative ideas and unpredictable solutions can be generated in the design process. Therefore, design constantly moves forward through the selection among different options. Creative thinking helps to develop the ability to generate diverse solutions and can lead to excellent solutions (Cross, 2004; Dorst and Cross, 2001) [6,7]. Therefore, although the design form has not yet been defined, generating creative ideas and concepts in the early stages of design is still very important. Even though the initial idea is recognized as the easiest to integrated into the design, concepts remain important even in the detailed design stage. (Gonçalves et al., 2014; Rojas and Tyler, 2018; Runco and Jaeger, 2012; Snider et al., 2016) [8,9,10,11]. In addition, the integration of creative practices and methods has become an increasingly important priority in the product designing industry and is an important cornerstone for companies to gain a greater market share (Wodehouse and Ion, 2011; Chakrabarti et al., 2004; Sarkar and Chakrabarti, 2011) [12,13,14]. In architectural design, Casakin et al. (2010) [15] found that when solving architectural problems, facing complex site conditions, demanding content and modeling expressions, the fluency of concepts is as important as creative thinking.

Architectural design has always been highly correlated with the development of creativity, and a well-equipped design studio is one of the necessary items for achieving the transition from concept to design (Goldschmidt et al., 2014) [16]. Creativity is not only the fundamental ability for design concepts, but also an essential aspect of strengthening the field of architecture. It also affects the development of design education and studio teaching methods (Boucharenc, 2006) [17]. By shaping a good design atmosphere through studio, it not only meets the needs of teaching, but also provides a place for peer learning and creativity stimulation, which has become a common practice in many schools in recent years. Akalin and Sezal (2009) [18] advocated that apart from providing studio learning methods, sketching or model making is also a way to enhance students’ conceptual design ability.

Soygenis et al. (2010) [19] argued that cultivating sketching skills can help students develop concepts through sketching, especially conceptualization and communication of ideas. Whether it is recording observations of the site or quickly organizing ideas, all of these can be completed through sketching. After subsequent transformation, description, and integration, these contents can all be used as ideas for design concepts (Graves, 1972) [20]. Baynes (1984) [21] also suggested that models should be regarded as metaphors for realizing reality because models are easily modifiable, reproducible, and continuously developed with the concept, becoming a convenient tool for designers to transform the concept.

Through the operation of a design concept, design ideas can be transformed into tangible forms, and this process is also a necessary step for designers in the early stages of design. Architects, engineers, and designers use prototypes for concept testing and evaluation and then propose the most suitable solutions. Prototyping has an extremely important role in design education, as students can learn the problems found at the actual site and propose solutions through creative thinking (Paio et al., 2012) [22]. Design concepts are not only important in the early stages of design, but also equally important for detailed design. The presentation of a detailed design is not only an interpretation of materials and structures, it also requires the continuous integration of design concepts to ensure that the details and the overall design are continuously aligned with the same design concepts (Baudoin, 2016; Burry, 2014; Ford, 2011; Frascari, 1984) [23,24,25,26]. In recent years, there have been studies on design concepts. Manahasa et al. (2021) [27] presented six design concepts for a children’s school building in a text form, which can serve as a reference for similar architectural designs in the future (flexibility, horizontality, campus-like environment, transparency, accessibility, and ecological concept). Aburas (2020) [28] stated that detailed site investigations and case studies can provide inspiration for students’ design concepts, and this view is completely consistent with the current teaching strategy. Kim and Yeo (2019) [29] proposed that architects should focus on the relationship between public space and social needs while paying attention to design concepts, allowing architecture to have better local characteristics. Hadian (2020) [30] believed that there are many challenges and evaluations in the architectural design process, including the generation of design concepts, the design process, and design education, all of which are closely related. Among them, the importance of design education is particularly emphasized. It can be concluded from the above studies that detailed site surveys, case studies, and architectural localization are all important foundations for developing design concepts. It is also important to ensure that there is a close relationship between concept generation and the design process through design education, which is one of the main objectives of this study.

In addition, SDGs (sustainable development goals) have become an extremely important issue in recent years. Adomßent et al. (2014) [31] suggested that universities can promote SDGs by offering related courses, organizing seminars, and collaborating with other organizations to promote regional development. These efforts not only help communities to understand and appreciate sustainable development but also require collaboration with other entities to achieve regional development. Rieckmann (2012) [32] argued that the core competencies of higher education must include sustainability and global citizenship awareness, as mentioned in the SDGs. It is also emphasized that higher education institutions must adopt different strategies in curriculum design and teaching to help students to achieve sustainable development goals through their learning. Leal Filho et al. (2019B) [33] explained the role of higher education institutions in local contexts and emphasized the importance of achieving sustainable development goals through research and knowledge transfer, education and training, policy and planning, community participation and cooperation, and other aspects. For this reason, the incorporation of SDGs in design education should be actively promoted, so that students can better understand the significance of SDGs through their coursework.

Based on the above literature review, the exploration of design concepts can be divided into the following three aspects. (1) In the early stages of design, the design concept can provide possibilities for different design approaches, which can then be gradually refined. (2) During the design process, the design concept can make complex issues converge one by one. (3) In the later stages of design, the design concept should continue to run through the detailed design to achieve overall consistency in the design. Therefore, it is extremely important to assist students in developing an operational method for sustainable design concepts. Based on understanding the development of students’ design concepts, this study analyzes the relationship between design concepts and works in the early, middle, and late stages. It includes five stages: (1) basic understanding of the concept, (2) ways to generate concepts, (3) operational method for concept, (4) review after concept generation, and (5) the correlation between the design concepts and SDGs. Based on these results, a framework is developed for future reference in teaching and to help to reduce difficulties for students in learning. The research framework is shown in Figure 1.

2. Method

2.1. Background of Respondents

Before discussing the method, the characteristics of the two types of universities for the respondents will first be explained. In Taiwan’s university system, there are two types: general universities (emphasizing independent thinking and creativity) and technology universities (emphasizing practical applications). These two education systems differ from high school and continue into university. Therefore, by analyzing the differences between the students from these two types of universities, information can be provided for teachers to give more guidance on the areas where students are less proficient. This will allow students to have better creativity and performance in their designs and improve their learning effectiveness. The works based on the design concepts of the two types of students surveyed are shown in Figure 2.

2.2. Questionnaire Design

This study focuses on senior students from the Department of Architecture and aims to understand the “development process of design concepts” by exploring the relationship between design concepts, development, operations, and the final work. The questionnaire is structured into five parts, including (1) basic understanding of the concept, (2) ways to generate concepts, (3) operational method for concepts, (4) review after concept generation, and (5) the correlation between design concepts and SDGs. Measurements were carried out using the Likert Scale (7 = Strongly Agree, 6 = Agree, 5 = Slightly Agree, 4 = No Opinion, 3 = Slightly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 1 = Strongly Disagree). The content of the questionnaire is shown in

Table 1. Questionnaire structure.

A. Basic Understanding of the Concept	B. Ways to Generate Concept
A1 Can clearly understand the importance of the design concept to the development of the work (A1 the importance of concept) A2 The generation of design concepts usually takes a lot of time (A2 time spending) A3 Only functional problems can be solved in the early stage of the design, and the development of the design concept cannot be fully considered (A3 functional problems) A4 Design concept usually starts to develop after the completion of the work. (A4 work completion) A5 Usually, without design concept, the design is completed by simply assigning functions (A5 no concept)	B1 The generation of design concepts usually comes from case studies (B1 from case studies) B2 Design concepts are usually developed from cultural or local context (site survey) (B2 cultural customs) B3 Design concepts are usually developed from material or structural considerations (B3 materials and structures) B4 The generation of design concepts usually comes from guidance by teachers (B4 teacher guidance) B5 Design concepts often emerge in the later stages of design and are then adjusted or revised (B5 late stage of design)
C. Operational method for concept	D. Review after concept generation
C1 Can be transformed into a space or shape based on a self-defined concept (C1 self-setting) C2 Design concepts are usually developed using textual methods (C2 textual development) C3 Design concepts are usually developed using visual methods (C3 visual Development) C4 Design concept are usually developed using modeling methods (C4 modeling) C5 Design concept are usually developed using case imitation methods (C5 case imitation)	D1 Can fully interpret the development process of the design concept through the design description (D1 complete interpretation) D2 Design concepts can run through the entire work rather than being presented in parts (D2 consistency throughout work) D3 Teacher can usually agree with the design concept I put forward (D3 agreement with concept) D4 I can clearly articulate the design concept during the critique (D4 clear articulation) D5 I will provide a series of models of the concept development process during the critique (D5 series of models)
E. Correlation between design concepts and SDGs
E1 I have a preliminary understanding of the 17 goals of SDGs. (E1 preliminary understanding) E2 Usually, I will actively incorporate SDGs into my design concepts. (E2 actively incorporate) E3 It is relatively easy to incorporate SDGs into the design process. (E3 relatively easy) E4 Adding SDGs usually can lead to a better rating of my designs. (E4 better rating)

.

2.3. Statistical Methods

A total of 171 questionnaires were collected in this survey, with 6 invalid questionnaires and 165 valid questionnaires. The ratio of general university students to technology university students is 68:97, and the male-to-female ratio is 52.1:47.9. The statistical methods are briefly described as follows: (1) analyzing whether there are differences in perception between different genders by “t-test”, (2) examining whether there are contextual differences between questions by “paired sample t-test”, (3) discussing the difference between two or more variables by “one-way analysis of variance”, and (4) analyzing whether there is a correlation between the variables by conducting “correlation analysis”.

2.4. Prerequisites

The main focus of this study is to understand the challenges faced by students in understanding design concepts and to explore the roles that design concepts play in various stages of design. As the operational mode of design education, teacher arrangements, and the scale of design tasks vary between different schools, in order to develop their own unique characteristics, the prerequisites for this study are as follows:

(1)

All schools choose the same grade (senior year) for discussion.

(2)

There are differences in student-teacher ratio and class hours between schools (student-teacher ratio: 1 teacher for every 6–8 students in general universities, 1 teacher for every 12–15 students in technology universities; class hours: 8 h/week in general universities, 5–8 h/week in technology universities).

(3)

The teaching environment of each school and the arrangement of other professional courses are not in the scope of discussion.

(4)

Among the survey respondents, general universities all have student studios, while technology universities do not have student studios.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Basic Understanding of the Concept

In general, all respondents believe that the design concept is important to the development of works (A1 the importance of concept), with an average value = 6.10 and a standard deviation (SD) = 0.87, which is the smallest among the “A. basic understanding of the concept”. This indicates that the design concept plays an extremely important role in design, and that general universities (average value = 6.15, SD = 0.79) have a more consistent understanding of this than technology universities (average value = 5.89, SD = 0.91). This is also consistent with the general impression that students in general universities place more emphasis on design concepts. In terms of course hours, there is no significant difference between the two, but there is a difference in the student-teacher ratio, with one teacher for every six to eight students in general universities and one teacher for every twelve to fifteen students in vocational universities. This may lead to a situation where teachers are unable to pay attention to the design development of every student, which is worth pondering. Secondly, the respondents also agreed that the generation of design concepts usually takes a lot of time (average value = 6.06, SD = 0.92), indicating that it is more difficult to develop design concepts. Both general universities (average value = 6.03, SD = 0.88) and technology universities (average value = 6.08, SD = 0.95) have very similar views on this matter. The result showed a “slightly agree” response (average value = 5.05, SD = 1.38) regarding the fact that in the early stages of design, only functional problems can be solved, and the development of design concepts cannot be fully taken into account (A3 functional problems). The result also showed a response close to “no opinion” (average value = 4.33, SD = 1.69) regarding the fact that usually, without design concepts, the design is completed by assigning functions (A5 no concept). Therefore, it was found that the respondents believed that developing design concepts is difficult and requires a lot of time. In the early stages of design, the goal is mostly to satisfy functions, and the development of design concepts cannot be fully taken into account. According to the test results, there is no significant difference (p > 0.05) in the overall recognition of “A1 the importance of concept”~“A4 work completion” among all respondents. However, there is a significant difference (p < 0.05) in the opinion on “A5 no concept” (

Table 2. Test of design concepts.

	A1 the Importance of Concept	A2 Time Spending	A3 Functional Problems	A4 Work Completion	A5 No Concept
All	0.084	0.137	0.213	0.136	0.000 *
General universities	0.067	1.000	0.173	0.091	0.007 *
Technology universities	0.497	0.105	0.116	0.109	0.001 *

Note: * p < 0.05.

). Therefore, it can be concluded that students recognize the importance of design concepts, but have difficulty in developing them during the design process. How to assist students in developing design concepts in subsequent teaching is obviously an important issue.

According to the correlation analysis (

Table 3. Design concept correlation analysis.

	A3 Functional Problems	A4 Project Completed
A4 work completion (all)	0.378 **	-
A4 work completion (general universities)	0.537 **	-
A4 work completion (technology universities)	0.268 **	-
A5 no concept (all)	0.311 **	0.431 **
A5 no concept (general universities)	0.431 **	0.575 **
A5 no concept (technology universities)	0.245 *	0.333 **

Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.

), “A3 functional problems”, “A4 work completion”, and “A5 no concept” are moderately correlated, indicating that students tend to have consistent views on these three issues. Among them, only the correlation between “A3 functional problems” and “A4 work completion” and between “A3 functional problems” and “A5 no concept” in technology universities is low (weakly correlated). It was found through post-interviews that technology students are not familiar with both discussing and implementing design concepts. This was also verified by the larger standard deviation, which led to imprecise answers and a very unclear understanding of the relationship between design concepts and design works. Based on previous teaching experience, it is known that technology university students are less clear about design concepts. This was confirmed through the questionnaire analysis, and it is suggested that teachers should provide more assistance in developing design concepts for technology university students. In addition, the results of the analysis by gender showed no significant differences (p > 0.05), indicating that although there is a significant difference in “without design concept, the design is completed by simply assigning functions”, after four years of learning, gender is not the main factor, which further proves that reducing the difficulty of operating the design concept for students is an extremely important topic. It was also found from previous inter-school exchanges that technology university students have very straightforward and brief descriptions of their own work, and the time spent on these descriptions is only half to one-third of that of general university students, showing a significant difference. However, design descriptions need to be clear about the design process, and it is obvious that technology university students lack this experience; therefore, they cannot describe the design clearly. Expressive language skills are essential for design descriptions, which are the skills that the students lack. Helping students develop logical thinking and expressive language skills in a limited time may not be achievable in a design course alone. However, technical and vocational education systems tend to focus more on practical skills. Whether to strengthen the cultivation of these skills for students may depend on the development and strategy of each school.

3.2. Concept Generation Method

How to generate design concepts has always been the biggest challenge in the learning stage. In teaching, students are usually guided through three paths: (1) case studies, (2) cultural customs (site survey), and (3) materials and structures. Among them, “B2 cultural customs (site survey)” is the most emphasized item in the early stages of design, which is also reflected in this survey (average value = 5.48, SD = 1.02), and received the highest rating. This is followed by “B1 from case studies” (average value = 4.91, SD = 1.29), “B3 materials and structures” (average value = 4.96, SD = 1.05), and “B4 teacher guidance” (average = 4.87, SD = 1.24), whose average values are very close to each other. There are also many cases where only the functional requirements of the topic are met, and the concept only appears in “B5 late stage of design” (average value = 4.63, SD = 1.42). In terms of different schools, it is found that technology universities rely more on case development (B1), while general universities prefer to develop from materials and structures (B3) (Figure 3). Therefore, it can be seen that the method of generating design concepts for students mainly comes from the information obtained through the site survey (cultural customs), which becomes the most important basis for the development of design concepts. The second most important sources are case studies, materials and structures, and teacher guidance, which are roughly equivalent. In addition, the analysis of the survey results revealed that all respondents had differences between the concepts “B1 from case studies” and “B5 late stage of design” (p < 0.05), of which the difference of “B1 from case studies” comes from technology universities (p = 0.012), and “B5 late stage of design” comes from general universities (p = 0.000) (

Table 4. Concept generation method test.

	B1 From Case Studies	B2 Cultural Customs	B3 Materials and Structures	B4 Teacher Guidance	B5 Late Stage of Design
All	0.042 *	0.326	0.208	0.843	0.001 *
General universities	1.000	0.904	0.033 *	0.609	0.000 *
Technology universities	0.012 *	0.157	0.332	0.488	0.172

Note: * p < 0.05.

). The reason for this difference was that technology universities had difficulty in integrating case studies into the design process, which led to greater differences in their evaluation. Interviews also revealed that technology universities often used group work to analyze case studies because many students had lower reading comprehension skills. However, the adoption of group work resulted in students who found it difficult to read the case studies making even less progress. The difference in the “B5 late stage of design” among general universities mainly came from investing more time in constantly adjusting the design direction and content, which led to revisions in the design concepts. Many students also developed their design concepts simultaneously with their design work. As a result, there were significant differences in the outcomes. In addition, general universities also pay special attention to the training in materials and structures in freshman design courses, which has an impact on subsequent learning development. Some students attach particular importance to materials and structures and give them higher ratings. Furthermore, when tested by gender, there were no significant differences (p > 0.05) among all respondents, including general universities and technology universities. Although different schools have different teaching strategies, gender differences did not affect the way in which the design concept was generated.

According to the correlation analysis (

Table 5. Correlation analysis of design concept generation method.

	B1 From Case Studies	B2 Cultural Customs	B3 Materials and Structures	B5 Late Stage of Design
B4 teacher guidance (all)	0.517 **	0.239 **	0.244 **	0.456 **
B4 teacher guidance (general universities)	0.622 **	0.456 **	0.289 *	0.525 **
B4 teacher guidance (technology universities)	0.459 **	0.112	0.222 *	0.427 *

Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.

), it was found that overall, “B4 teacher guidance” was more highly correlated (moderately correlated) with the other items in terms of the way in which design concepts were generated. This suggests that in the learning process, teacher guidance is still the most important way to generate design concepts, and being inspired by case studies is the key. Even if the concept is generated in the later stage of the design, it is still closely related to teacher guidance. The second very important way is through case studies, which can inspire ideas about cultural customs and materials and structures. When conducting correlation analysis among different schools, it was found that for general universities, there was a significant correlation between “teacher guidance” and the generation of design concepts, regardless of whether they came from “case studies”, “cultural customs”, “materials and structures”, or “late stage of design”. This suggests that teacher guidance does indeed have a significant impact, particularly on the correlation between design concepts and case studies. For technology universities, after being guided by teachers, there was only a good correlation between “from case studies” and “late stage of design” in the generation of design concepts. Preliminary interviews revealed that this may be related to insufficient class discussion time and a large number of students. However, further study is needed to confirm this. In addition, the generation of design concepts through “materials and structures” is an area where teachers can strengthen their teaching in class. Especially when it comes to local materials issues. Teacher guidance is crucial to allow for better utilization of these materials in design.

3.3. Concept Operation Method

In terms of the operational aspect of the design concept, “being able to transform self-defined concept into a space or form” has the highest rating (average value = 5.54, SD = 0.90). “Visual development” (C3) and “modeling” (C4) were the most commonly used methods by students (Figure 4). This suggests that students have no problem developing design concepts through drawing and model manipulation. Although there were no significant differences between different schools, the test revealed that there was a difference in the perception of “case imitation” (C5) among all respondents (p = 0.010). After comparing the students’ performance and conducting interviews, it was found that the reason for this difference was mainly because students who achieved better performance tended to read more case studies and could better apply the knowledge gained from these case studies to their designs. Moreover, as design content becomes more complex in higher grades, without accumulating better learning experience, it becomes increasingly difficult to find the time to read a large number of case studies, which makes it more difficult for case studies to be used for the development of design concepts. There were significant differences (p < 0.05) among technology university students in “self-setting” (C1), “visual development” (C3), and “case imitation” (C5) primarily due to many students not paying enough attention to “design concepts”. They only focus on meeting functional goals during the design process and do not explain the design concept during the evaluation process (critique). Interviews revealed that most students consider design concepts to be extremely difficult, and they tend to avoid them. However, it is challenging to guide such students to pay attention to design concepts within the limited teaching time available. In contrast, there was no obvious difference among general university students in all aspects (

Table 6. Concept operation test.

	C1 Self-Setting	C2 Textual Development	C3 Visual Development	C4 Modeling	C5 Case Imitation
All	0.089	0.514	0.083	0.261	0.010 *
General universities	0.902	0.219	0.718	0.541	0.340
Technology universities	0.025 *	0.391	0.025 *	0.824	0.002 *

Note: * p < 0.05.

). It is inferred that most general university students can develop concepts according to their own settings in terms of concept operations and often use graphic drawing or model making to interpret concepts, with relatively less reliance on textual description. Interviewing the instructor about the results mentioned before, it was also found that most teachers believe that the existence of a design studio is extremely important, mainly because the studio environment provides peer-learning opportunities. Secondly, teachers can go to the studio to discuss design with students at any time during their spare time.

Correlation analysis shows that (

Table 7. Correlation analysis of concept operation.

	C3 Visual Development	C4 Modeling
C4 modeling (all)	0.459 **	-
C4 modeling (general universities)	0.558 **	-
C4 modeling (technology universities)	0.390 **	-
C1 self-setting (all)	0.390 **	0.246 **
C1 self-setting (general universities)	0.265 **	0.363 **
C1 self-setting (technology universities)	0.475 **	0.135

Note: ** p < 0.01.

) “visual development” (C3) and “modeling” (C4) have a better correlation (correlation coefficient of 0.459) in the design concept operation methods of all respondents. The other correlations are not high, which also indicates that many students use a parallel approach of adopting both graphics and models to operate design concepts. Post-interviews also revealed that university students tend to prefer using models to develop their concepts. However, due to the complexity of senior-level design projects, they are unable to complete them one by one based on their own settings within a limited time. The design concepts will also be revised gradually during the design process, but they still tend to develop graphics and models synchronously (correlation coefficient of 0.558). On the other hand, technology university students tend to develop their concept through graphics (correlation coefficient of 0.475). The reason is that the course time is shorter, and the ratio of students to teachers is higher. This accumulation over time results in the discussion of functional issues ending and another student taking over the discussion, resulting in less focus on design concepts. Although the students answered that they used visual development to operate the design concept, they only added conceptual development to the finished design when they annotate the graphics, and most of these developments were added after the design was completed and were not considered during the process. However, this is also a common phenomenon in Taiwan. After the reform of vocational education, practical courses have been greatly reduced. The nature of the courses is not much different from that of general universities, but the operation time is shorter, resulting in the most time-consuming design concept operations being merely nominal, and serving only as a form of satisfaction. This does not help to cultivate students’ design skills. This view is also supported by the low correlation coefficient between “C1 self-setting” and “C4 modeling”, which is only 0.135 (Table 6). In terms of gender testing, there were no significant differences observed among all respondents, general university students, and technology university students, indicating that under different teaching models, students of different genders can have similar development without any significant differences.

In summary, the students’ concept operation mode is as follows: They typically use known concepts (base models) that are usually derived from case studies and apply them to the project, adjusting them to better suit the environmental characteristics (cultural customs) of the site (assimilation). Whether they use graphics or models for the development, after several adjustments (moderation), they achieve the required conditions or functional requirements of the site (balance) and establish a new corresponding plan (new base model). So far, it is noted that the process of students’ concept development (base model, assimilation, moderation, balance) is consistent with Piaget’s cognitive development theory (Piaget, 1983) [34], and students do indeed build more concepts (base models) through design. Through the theory of cognitive development, we can also learn about the two best strategies for teachers to assist students: (1) For students with better learning abilities, the focus can be on assisting them in producing concepts multiple times and adjusting them through more precise perspectives to better meet the requirements suitable for the site (“moderation” and “balance”), so that there can be better consistency from concept to implementation. (2) For students with average learning ability, the focus is on helping them to understand the deeper environmental issues of the site and assisting them in generating concepts, so that the concepts can be better connected to the site and the project (“base model” and “assimilation”).

3.4. Review after Concept Generation

Through the evaluation process (critique), the design process from conceptualization to completion can be re-examined for its coherence. Among the questionnaire items, “D1 complete interpretation” (average value = 5.35, SD = 0.95) and “D2 consistency throughout work” (average value = 5.34, SD = 1.02) are generally considered to be well-performed by students. However, “D4 clear articulation” (average value = 4.61, SD = 1.21) is the lowest item in student satisfaction. Additionally, in all evaluation items of “D. Review after concept generation”, general university students outperformed technology university students. It remains to be further investigated whether this is related to universities placing greater emphasis on design education. However, preliminary interviews do show that universities generally have longer design course hours and well-equipped studio spaces for all students, which can indeed provide a better atmosphere and results for students in design learning. Through testing, it was also found that all items (D1~D5) have significant differences (p < 0.05) (

Table 8. After concept generation test.

	D1 Complete Interpretation	D2 Consistency throughout Work	D3 Agreement with Concept	D4 Clear Articulation	D5 Series of Model
All	0.003 *	0.021 *	0.010 *	0.005 *	0.000 *
General universities	0.679	0.476	1.000	0.912	0.905
Technology universities	0.008 *	0.003 *	0.952	0.045 *	0.031 *

Note: * p < 0.05.

). As far as the students’ self-evaluation of learning effectiveness is concerned, such very significant differences in performance should indeed be reviewed from the curriculum and teaching perspectives to understand the reasons for the differences. It is necessary to reduce the large differences in student-learning effectiveness. In testing among different schools, it was found that there are no significant differences in all items among general university students, and their opinions are consistent. Only the evaluation of “D4 clear articulation” is slightly lower, indicating that teachers should give priority to assisting students in strengthening their design discourse abilities. However, the technology universities mostly show significant differences. Although there is no difference in “D3 agreement with concept”, its rating is not high (4.61), indicating that a comprehensive review of teaching may be needed. Re-examining the topic setting and revising some of the content should be an urgent goal. This is because it is generally recognized in Taiwan’s industry that technology university graduates lack conceptual skills in their operations, which is consistent with the testing results. There is a clear difference in gender in the item “D4 clear articulation” only in technology universities, while there is no difference in other items. Examining the original questionnaire shows that the difference in evaluation is more significant among male students. Comparing their grades, it is found that they are mostly students with poor academic performance, which also suggests the importance of enhancing students’ ability to articulate “design concepts” in teaching.

As far as the learning stage is concerned, whether the design concept can be recognized by the teacher is relatively important. Therefore, conducting correlation analysis and summarizing each item with “Teacher can usually agree with the design concept I put forward” (D3) in

Table 9. Correlation analysis of after concept generation.

	D1 Complete Interpretation	D2 Consistency throughout Work	D4 Clear Articulation	D5 Series of Models
D3 agreement with concept (all)	0.343 **	0.367 **	0.436 **	0.400 **
D3 agreement with concept (general universities)	0.543 **	0.455 **	0.651 **	0.428 **
D3 agreement with concept (technology universities)	0.342 **	0.375 **	0.372 **	0.345 **

Note: ** p < 0.01.

lead to the following conclusions. Overall, whether the design concept can be recognized by the teacher is moderately correlated with other issues, but the value is not high and close to a low correlation, indicating that there is still a lot of room for improvement in how to strengthen students’ ability in the aspect of design concepts. Although students generally agree that they can fully interpret design concepts to some extent (D1), and that design concepts can run through their work (D2), the ratings given by teachers are relatively lower than what students imagine as excellent. In general universities, the items “clear articulation of design concepts” (D4) and “complete interpretation of design concepts” (D1) received better ratings from teachers. However, in technology universities, there were no significantly outstanding items, which once again illustrates the issue of relatively weak design concepts among technology university students.

3.5. Design Concept Development and SDGs

Regarding the relationship between the development of design concepts and SDGs, overall, most respondents indicated that they have a preliminary understanding of SDGs (E1 preliminary understanding), with an average value = 5.68 and SD = 0.90, which is also the smallest among the items in “E. Correlation between design concepts and SDGs”. This indicates that the respondents’ views are the closest on this topic. The responses from general universities (average = 5.71, SD = 0.89) and technology universities (average = 5.65, SD = 0.91) were similar. However, there is a larger standard deviation in the item “E2 actively incorporate” SDGs issues, indicating that there were significant differences in opinions among the respondents (average = 4.56, SD = 1.89). This suggests that there is still room for improvement in promoting SDGs and something that should be taken into account in teaching. It is worth considering whether to directly include SDGs in the questionnaire, as shown in Figure 5 on SDGs and design concepts. In terms of SDGs operational issues (E3 relatively easy), the rating is the lowest (average = 4.02, SD = 1.67), indicating that although the respondents had a preliminary understanding of SDGs, it is not as easy as expected to incorporate them into design concepts. This also indicates that although SDGs are discussed in many courses, how to apply them in design operations requires further clarification, including key items and necessary content, in the teaching syllabus. This will provide clear guidance for teachers in subsequent teaching, facilitating promotion of SDGs in design education. Finally, in terms of incorporating SDG issues, the design is usually evaluated with a better rating (E4 better rating), which has a similar result to E2 (average = 5.34, SD = 1.87). This aspect will be further explored and explained through correlation analysis. To further analyze the questionnaire results, it can be determined through testing that there is no difference in the rating between “E1 preliminary understanding” and “E4 better rating” (p > 0.05). In other words, although E2 and E4 have a greater standard deviation, there is still no statistically significant difference in the rating. However, correlation analysis shows that there is a correlation between E2 and E4 (p < 0.05 in

Table 10. Correlation analysis of SDGs.

	E1 Preliminary Understanding	E2 Actively Incorporate	E3 Relatively Easy	E4 Better Rating
E1 preliminary understanding	-	0.325	0.272	0.169
E2 actively incorporate		-	0.358	0.679 *
E3 relatively easy			-	0.261
E4 better rating				-

Note: * p < 0.05.

), indicating that if SDGs are actively incorporated into the design concepts, teachers will give better ratings for the design. Currently, there are no clear SDGs requirements in the design curriculum operations of the interviewed schools. Post-interviews also revealed that if students independently incorporate relevant issues, it can indeed provide more options for design operations and make design more diverse. During class discussions with teachers, students can also receive more guidance, which is beneficial for learning outcomes.

4. Conclusions

The design concept has always been the most difficult and time-consuming item for students to learn in the design process. This study takes senior students as an example. Through understanding the process of students’ development of design concepts, it analyzes learning effectiveness and key influencing factors, hoping to provide teachers with reference to improve their teaching strategies. In recent years, due to the rapid rise of Building Information Model, the drawings required for architectural design can be produced in a shorter period of time. For learning and design, it is still unclear whether it is an advantage or a beauty on the surface, as more solid “design concept” ability training shows its necessity and importance. In summary, the conclusions of the analysis presented above are explained as follows.

4.1. Learning Effectiveness

After four years of design study, although students think that the “design concept” is important, they still generally think that it is not easy to operate, time-consuming, and even having no sense. Technology universities are relatively weak in the discussion and operation of design concepts. There are two main reasons: 1. The development of design concepts requires better logical thinking skills, and discourse requires better expressive language skills. Both types of skills are relatively lacking in technology university students under the current educational system in Taiwan, making it even more obvious in their performance in design concepts. 2. The development of design concepts requires greater involvement and guidance from teachers, and the current teaching hours are only about 0.3 h to 1.0 h per week for each student’s discussions with a teacher, which is clearly insufficient to meet the needs of students. In addition, general university students prefer to use materials and structures to develop design concepts, while technology university students prefer to use case studies. This result is related to the training in materials and structures that is incorporated into the design education during the first year of general universities.

In terms of design concept operation, visual development and modeling are the most commonly used methods by students. General university students prefer to use models to interpret concepts, while technology university students prefer to use images. The reason for this difference is that vocational university courses have shorter duration and a higher student-to-teacher ratio, which over time, leads to functional problems being discussed and insufficient time being devoted to discussing conceptual issues. The development of concepts through case studies is related to design performance. Without having good learning experience accumulated, it becomes more difficult for students to have time to continue reading a large number of cases in their senior years. It was found from a post review after concept generation that there were no significant differences observed among general universities, but there were noticeable differences among technology universities. General universities have longer design course hours and well-equipped studio spaces, which can indeed enable students to have a better atmosphere and effectiveness in design learning.

By understanding the effectiveness of learning, students’ operational mode of designing concepts can be obtained: (1) concepts (base model) can usually be obtained through case studies and applied to the design; (2) it is more suitable for a site (assimilation) to be adjusted according to its environmental characteristics (cultural customs); (3) regardless of the use of images or models, after several adjustments (moderation), the site conditions or the functional requirements are met (balance), and a new corresponding solution (new base model) is established. This result is consistent with Piaget’s cognitive development theory’s (base model, assimilation, moderation, balance) process, and provides opportunities and methods for teachers to intervene. Base model and assimilation are suitable for people with average learning effectiveness, while moderation and balance are suitable for those with higher learning effectiveness.

4.2. Teaching Suggestions

This study found that “teacher guidance” is the most important key to assist students in developing design concepts. Whether it is assisting students in analyzing cases, inspiring them to use various materials and structures, or helping them to understand the uniqueness of local cultural customs, it is necessary for the teacher to guide the design process in order for students to achieve better development outcomes. This is also the core value of design education. The focus of design education should be on discussing concepts rather than examining the correctness of drawings, which should be assisted by courses such as graphics and construction drawings. Among them, culture and customs come from site surveys, and most students are competent in this area, so teachers only need to provide reminders. However, materials and construction require more professional knowledge in architecture, and it is beyond the ability of students to integrate the skills of other professional courses into design. Therefore, teacher’s intervention and assistance are particularly needed.

In addition, teacher’s assistance is also needed in the oral discourse on design concepts. As mentioned earlier, concepts come from diverse sources, and are transformed from concrete events to abstract representations through drawings or models (from concrete to abstract), and then expressed orally during evaluations (from abstract to concrete). At this point, the original concept (event) has already been transformed many times and interpreted through spoken words. Each transformation is another extension of a concrete image and meaning. This process is consistent with the “signification” described by Roland Barthes in semiotics (Barthes, 1968) [35]. Barthes also divides meaning into two types: “simile” and “metaphor”. The interpretation of design concepts is nothing more than these two methods. Therefore, it is also known that the ability to discuss design concepts is actually based on a profound theoretical foundation that involves not only the expertise of architecture but also the analysis of semiotic meaning. Therefore, even if students study other professional courses, they still need the assistance from the teacher for the “cultivation of the discussion ability”, which can only be developed through the work of students in the process of discussion and design.

4.3. Sustainability Issues

Overall, students have a basic understanding of the SDGs, but relatively few actively incorporate the concepts into their designs, and they may also be unfamiliar with how to do so. In addition, if students do incorporate SDGs into their designs on their own initiative, they usually receive better ratings during critiques, which indicates that SDGs do indeed provide more possibilities for design. The author suggests including SDGs in future design projects as a necessary item, and providing relevant guidance and assistance during class discussions. If students take the initiative to incorporate relevant issues, it can provide more choices for design and make it more diverse.

The interpretation of design concepts is an extremely important but relatively difficult topic to address in both academic and professional settings. This study analyzes the process of how students develop design concepts and provides specific learning outcomes and teaching suggestions. The author hopes that this will be helpful for improving design education in the future. In addition, supplementary information regarding design concepts and SDGs was provided. It was found that if students actively incorporate SDGs into their design concepts, their design outcomes are more likely to receive better ratings. However, relatively few students take the initiative to include this concept in their designs, so teachers can promote the incorporation of the SDGs in the classroom teaching.