Next Article in Journal
Mechanical Properties of Dahurian Larch Wood under Cyclic Loading: Experiments and Constitutive Model
Previous Article in Journal
Evaluation of Ultra-High-Performance Concrete Columns at High Temperatures after 180 Days of Curing
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Buildings
Volume 13
Issue 9
10.3390/buildings13092255
buildings-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Research on the Influence of Nonmorphological Elements’ Cognition on Architectural Design Education in Universities: Third Year Architecture Core Studio in Special Topics “Urban Village Renovation Design”

by
Zhi Qiu
1,2,
Su Wang
1,3,
Xiang Chen
1,
Xingwei Xiang
4,*,
Qingqing Chen
4 and
Junqiao Kong
4
1
Institute of Architectural Design and Theoretical Research, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China
2
Center for Balance Architecture, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310027, China
3
The Architectural Design and Research Institute of Zhejiang University Co, Ltd., Hangzhou 310027, China
4
School of Architecture and Urban Planning Hust, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430074, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Buildings 2023, 13(9), 2255; https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13092255
Submission received: 29 July 2023 / Revised: 23 August 2023 / Accepted: 4 September 2023 / Published: 5 September 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Architectural Design, Urban Science, and Real Estate)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study focuses on the topic of “Urban Village Renovation Design” under the complex and diversified social needs in the third year of the architecture undergraduate program at Zhejiang University, China. Based on the theory and method of “situational teaching,” this study proposes a teaching framework integrating the investigation and cognition of nonmorphological elements, such as historical background, economic structure, social structure, public service, and human needs. The study aims to reveal the analysis and response of site investigation and architectural programming to social needs in the realistic context, and take nonmorphological elements as one of the important factors to promote the rationality and authenticity of architectural design, standardize the teaching process in the form of the teaching framework, and realize the teaching goal of solving social needs by design. Qualitative analyses are used to evaluate whether the proposed teaching framework achieves the expected teaching effects according to Bloom’s Taxonomy. We then use the Kirkpatrick model to quantitatively evaluate the specific effects of the framework, and the differences in the positive effects of nonmorphological elements on teaching are explored. In addition, regression analysis is used to discuss ways of obtaining nonmorphological elements. The results show that the teaching framework is a feasible method to improve students’ understanding of social problems and implement reasonable architectural programming that integrates nonmorphological elements in the architectural design course. To some extent, this teaching framework addresses the neglect of nonmorphological elements in traditional Chinese architectural design teaching, and forms an experience-based teaching methodology that can be used to guide architectural design teaching on other topics. This study is helpful in exploring the value and potential of nonmorphological elements in architectural design and provides a reference for college teachers engaged in architectural programming and design teaching.

1. Introduction

With the development of emerging technologies and the diversification of social construction modes, urbanization has advanced to a new level. The market demand for buildings has gradually been enriched, and the architectural programming of buildings has become more complex and diversified [1]. Urban construction in China has shifted from “large-scale demolition and construction” to “stock renewal,” and a large number of buildings that differ from traditional programming types have emerged. The change in social demand puts forward new requirements for architectural design. Architects face complex and personalized problems and the boundaries of architectural knowledge are gradually blurred [2]. As a result, a comprehensive reform of the architect training system and architectural education model is required.

1.1. Chinese Traditional Architectural Program Structure

Influenced by Western architectural education theories and methods such as the Beaux-Arts tradition and the Bauhaus modern architecture education system [3], the traditional construction education in China, represented by “Rules for Structural Carpentry”, has gradually evolved into a modern architectural aesthetic and architectural teaching model with “geometric form” as the core, which integrates Western modernism and Chinese traditional architectural structure technology [4,5]. Different from the western Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) architectural education system [6], which provides 3 or 4 years of undergraduate education and 2 years of postgraduate education [7], the architectural education in Chinese universities usually presents a “5 + 3 (or 2.5) model.”; that is, 5 years of undergraduate education and 3 (or 2.5) years of postgraduate education. The undergraduate stage mainly focuses on propositional design, while the postgraduate stage shifts the focus from “design” itself to a specific study promoted for “design.” During the five-year undergraduate period, the first three years are referred to as “basic teaching,” which mainly teaches students skills in designing specific types of buildings and exercises their ability to control spatial forms. The course is organized through levels such as “form Composition (1st Year), simple civil architecture design like small houses (2nd Year), and slightly complex civil architecture design like exhibition buildings (3rd Year).” According to the number of students, each course level is composed of several teachers to form a “teaching group”. The teaching group is not only responsible for teaching plan, that is, architectural design proposition, design progress control, achievement evaluation, and other contents, but also responsible for the design training of students. Every academic year, the teaching group will discuss and establish 4–5 architectural design training propositions; each proposition lasts from 4 weeks to 12 weeks, and all students will conduct design training around the propositions. The fourth and fifth years are called “advanced teaching”, which focuses on proposing solutions to certain social phenomena and problems and emphasizing the practicability of architectural design. On the one hand, it conducts training on architectural design such as urban design and landscape design, and on the other hand, students enter teachers’ studios to learn how to solve complex problems in different fields under the guidance of different studios. After the completion of undergraduate studies, students can choose to continue to enter the 3 (or 2.5)-year postgraduate stage, learning to dig and interpret construction problems through sociology, computer science, history, and other interdisciplinary disciplines, and finally putting forward their interpretation and reflection of a construction problem. Currently, most traditional architecture schools in China adopt this approach (Table 1).
In the decades of China’s extensive construction and relatively simple but clear building types, this architectural education has cultivated countless outstanding architects and architectural scholars for China. However, with the change in the times, the goals and tasks of architectural design have also produced more and more uncertainties. In the stage of “basic teaching,” colleges use “Problem” to refer to different types of buildings. This typology-based teaching method provides students with a clear “task book”. It has a good effect on the cultivation of shape and space designing ability, but the programming and scale of the building are also subject to the requirements of the “task book”. The evaluation criteria of the design results are mainly spatial, emphasizing the completeness and systematic nature of the architectural design scheme from the perspective of rationality and aesthetics, and the design results exhibit stereotypy, repetition, and high similarity [8]. Due to the excessive emphasis on geometric forms in “basic teaching” and the complete neglect of guiding students to conduct cognitive training on social problems, architecture students who have completed the three-year basic training have not yet formed sensitive cognition of environmental needs, and are unable to adapt to the training of interpreting social phenomena and solving social problems in advanced teaching, and the phenomenon of “teaching system fault” even appears [9]. Compared with the rapid development of society, architectural education that only considers architectural formal logic as its core hinders the transformation and sustainable development of architecture to some extent.

1.2. The Reform Practice of Architectural Design Curriculum

In response to the demands of social development on architecture students in the modern era, some architecture colleges and universities have recently made efforts to move away from traditional teaching methods. Instead of providing a predetermined architectural design “task book,” these institutions have embraced a more comprehensive approach by utilizing architectural programming. Based on site cognition and problem sorting, programming is proposed to make the building truly become the carrier of social life and avoid “empty shell” architecture that merely caters to the aesthetic sense of space. However, rational and complete architectural programming can not only be completed based on morphological elements such as aesthetic form and spatial structure. It requires understanding, cognition, and transformation of social, political, economic, cultural, and other nonmorphological elements, bringing about reforms in basic teaching.
This brings challenges to the teaching plan work of the teaching group. Under the requirement of the complexity of the proposition, the teaching group of the Architecture of Zhejiang University aims at one of the complicated problems in the process of urbanization in China, called the “Urban Village.” The urban village is a special phenomenon in the process of urbanization in China; it is the product of the “digestion” of the villages around cities by rapid urban expansion. In contrast to the shape texture of a large grid city, “Urban Village” presents the heterogeneous form and density texture of a small grid, which has an intuitive impact on shape. Most urban villages are dominated by cheap rental industries, and there is an obvious binary opposition between a few homeowners and most tenants. Because of this, the rental problem of cheap urban labor is guaranteed, and a dynamic but stable, low-quality but abundant, social form is formed inside urban villages. Determining how to activate the public space of urban villages and improve the quality of life in urban villages without affecting the stability of the city has always been a controversial issue in industry and academia [10,11]. In recent years, many architecture colleges, such as Tongji University and Southeast University, have also opened thematic teaching with “urban villages” as the design object. The topic “Urban Village Renovation Design” lasts for 12 weeks (5 credits), and the teaching process is divided into three stages of “Research–Programming–Design”. In the research stage, mining and cognitive training of “nonmorphological elements” is conducted. The mode of “situational teaching” is used to restore the real scene, analyze and integrate the role value of nonmorphological elements, and then comprise a project for architectural programming and design links.
Since 2016, the teaching experiment on “Urban Village Renovation Design” has been conducted for third-year undergraduate students at Zhejiang University. Faced with an architectural aesthetic and evaluation system centered around “geometric form,” this study investigates whether learning, cognition, and application of “nonmorphological elements” in relation to social economy and humanity significantly contribute to architectural design outcomes based on the obtained teaching results. Furthermore, it explores if the positive impact of nonmorphological elements on students’ architectural design effectiveness is consistent across different nonmorphological elements and how these elements can be effectively acquired. This study promotes the expansion and improvement in the architectural design teaching stage, supplements teaching content other than form and programming, and helps in the smooth integration of nonmorphological elements into architectural teaching. Therefore, this study can provide a reference for architectural educators and researchers to optimize the process and content of architectural design teaching.

2. Literature Review

2.1. The Relationship between Nonmorphological Elements and Architectural Design

From the perspective of architecture, urban morphological elements serve as a theoretical basis and design support for architectural design. With the development of urbanization and the in-depth study of urban morphology [12], the essence of architectural design has evolved from the classical aesthetics, which focus on the harmonious relationship between single geometric form and proportion, to the “Morphological Gene Research,” which integrates different levels of morphological elements such as urban space, texture, and structure [13]. In addition to the influence of the surrounding space, traffic, structure, modeling, and morphological elements on architectural design [14], other factors such as the road network, street texture, boundary, and skyline, can also be translated into symbolic and graphic language to guide architectural design [15]. In the early stage of architectural design, architects usually direct their attention towards geometrically related elements that facilitate formal operation. However, it is imperative to emphasize that nonmorphological elements should equally garner the focus of architects since they encapsulate information about site, environment, and other contextual factors that profoundly influence the design process.
With the change in social needs, it has been indicated in many research studies that real-time and objective environmental and social nonmorphological elements (such as history, culture, society, ecology, and economy) will also positively affect architectural design [16]. The New European Bauhaus, which aims to establish a connection between science and technology, culture, and art, closely combines aesthetic design with sustainable development [17], and emphasizes the role of social, environmental, and cultural sustainability in architectural design [18]. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the United Nations underscore the imperative of incorporating the integration of cultural, ecological, and other nonmorphological elements into architectural design practices [19]. Furthermore, the SDGs also provide support and drive efforts towards the transition of achieving “net-zero” emissions and enhancing the resilience of the construction industry [20]. At present, it is common to carry out architectural design practices and research based on one or several nonmorphological elements. For example, architectural design dominated by sociological research methods focuses on the influence of social factors on architectural design [21]. Architectural heritage protection and urban renewal, drawing from historical and cultural perspectives [22,23], address the significance of historical elements in shaping architectural design. Architectural design that attaches importance to human behavior takes into account users’ behavior and body perception, and places emphasis on the inclusiveness, diversity, and fairness of architectural design [24]. For the application of nonmorphological elements, architectural programming provides an effective approach. It underscores the importance of comprehensively evaluating all site elements prior to commencing architectural design, aiming to form targeted guidance content for architectural design [25]. Through its overall control, collection, and translation of both morphological and nonmorphological elements, architectural programming plays a pivotal role in improving the scientific rigor of project decision making and ensuring the overall balance of economic, environmental, and social benefits [26].

2.2. The Relationship between Nonmorphological Elements and Architectural Design Teaching

The architectural design process is intricate, encompassing the integration of new technical, social, environmental, and economic requirements [27]. Consequently, architectural design education should be tilted towards the authenticity and rationality of solving social problems. Nonmorphological elements provide basic data and conditions conductive to fostering such inclination towards authenticity and rationality. Many colleges and universities employ the “situational teaching” approach to explore the connection between nonmorphological elements and architectural design [28], and guide students to actively construct scenes in real environments and subsequently generate design outcomes. Currently, this method is extensively used in educational contexts based on architectural design competition. For example, the Solar Decathlon [29,30] requires systematic consideration of many nonmorphological elements such as site, environment, materials, history and culture, economic conditions, and energy use. The UIA-HYP CUP International Student Competition in Architectural Design [31] focuses on social hot issues. With the aim of addressing social needs, the competition extensively examines and employs a variety of nonmorphological elements, including environment, context, and industry.
Exploring the interrelation between nonmorphological elements and architectural design is also frequently pursued through architectural design education at the “advanced teaching” and postgraduate stages [32]. This exploration is facilitated through various courses such as “Public interest design-construction” [33] and CDIO Mode [34]. In these courses, architectural programming serves as a key link in the teaching of architectural design and nonmorphological elements act as a tool to highlight the originality of architectural design [35]. Through site investigation, students delve into the potential local cultural, economic, and social values, and subsequently translate relevant nonmorphological elements into programming combination, space design, form, and green technology. This comprehensive approach offers essential support for the realization of the place and the humanity of architecture [36,37].

2.3. The Role of Nonmorphological Elements in Architectural Design Teaching Remains to Be Explored

Within architectural design, the positive impact of nonmorphological elements lies in their capacity to help students to understand architecture in detail. While not completely standardized or explicit, nonmorphological elements can reveal the underlying causes and essence of problems and phenomena more deeply than explicit quantitative research. It parallels the advantages of interview analysis. Moreover, it empowers students to develop a constructive understanding of nonmorphological elements based on their own experience, background knowledge, and knowledge reserve, which has the characteristics of constructivism. In this sense, the teaching of morphological and nonmorphological elements is complementary, and both are of great importance. The EAAE Charter on Architectural Research’s expressions of architectural research, design research, architectural research, and education reflect the importance and necessity of nonmorphological elements in architectural design teaching [38].
However, due to the complexity and diversity of knowledge and problem-solving ability entailed by the nonmorphological elements, the corresponding architectural design teaching is rarely carried out well in the “basic teaching” of the undergraduate architecture design education. Taking into account the teaching objectives and the cognitive capabilities of students, nonmorphological elements might not constitute the primary focus of teaching at this stage. There are still limitations to carrying out the teaching of nonmorphological elements in architectural design competitions and architectural design teaching in “advanced teaching”.
Similar to sustainable education at undergraduate level, if sustainable theories and methods are only taught in senior undergraduate years, it will not only pose challenges for students to understand and apply sustainable knowledge, but also burden their learning experience. Moreover, when compared with sustainable education, the content related to nonmorphological elements has a greater capacity to deeply engage with the core of architectural design and architectural tradition. Therefore, it becomes imperative to promptly integrate the knowledge and comprehension of nonmorphological elements into the undergraduate architectural design curriculum [39]. In addition, there is a pressing need to develop effective methods for imparting the knowledge about nonmorphological elements within the “basic teaching” framework for undergraduates, such as attaching importance to the integration of architectural programming within architectural design education. Presently, there exists a deficiency in a comprehensive teaching system that seamlessly combines research, programming, and design.

3. Research Methods

3.1. Teaching Framework Incorporating Nonmorphological Elements

The goal of “Urban Village Renovation Design” is that students are required to explore the living problems of the selected urban village, activate the public space of the urban village, and improve the overall living environment by tearing down the residential buildings of a certain area and installing public buildings of equal area and certain programming at the same time. This first requires students to obtain information on the morphological and nonmorphological elements of urban villages. Based on this information, they summarize and analyze problems, propose appropriate programming for new buildings, and then carry out space and form design of buildings and sites. Compared with the past design teaching which focused solely on the form of material space, this topic incorporates the investigation and cognitive training of nonmorphological elements into the teaching. The reform caused the former design-based model to be abandoned, and emphasized the investigation and programming of the design object before teaching course design [40]. “Urban Village Renovation Design” not only asks for an architectural level of renovation, but requires students to start from the real problem and carry out programming and space design, so as to cultivate students’ ability to collect and analyze information, and develop self-thinking, research skills, and problem discovery. In the past seven years, the teaching group selected “urban villages” with similar scale and spatial development but different contradictions as the practical objects of the course, and guided the students to establish different themes (Table 2 and Figure 1). This effectively avoided obvious similarities in the discovered social problems and monotonous repetition of design results. The teaching group has developed a teaching framework that differs from the traditional morphological-based teaching framework. This framework guides students in the identification, analysis, and classification of nonmorphological elements while describing the degree to which each element should be known and the analysis results in detail.
The framework of research elements developed by the teaching group includes not only the morphological elements listed in the “City Image” [41], such as boundaries, nodes, and markers, but also nonmorphological elements, such as social culture [42], neighborhood facilities [43], public service quality [44], economic income, and social structure [45,46]. According to the literature, research process, and teaching reform, 12 teachers of the teaching group held a seminar and invited student representatives involved in the design of various projects to participate in the discussion. The seminar attendees made group decisions through brainstorming [47] and obtained the opinions of experts, teachers, and students on the teaching framework through discussions. Finally, a research framework covering morphological and nonmorphological elements was formed through induction and summary (Figure 2). The students investigate, analyze, and classify each element of the framework, explore the angle, feasibility, and estimated results of problem-solving, and complete the transition from “Cognition + Research” to “Programming + Task book.” The nonmorphological components discovered during the inquiry are fed back into the architectural design via programming.

3.2. Teaching Effectiveness Tests for the Teaching Framework

This study uses qualitative and quantitative research methods to test the practical effects of the developed teaching framework [48,49]. The qualitative analysis of Bloom’s Taxonomy is used to reveal the teaching effect of the curriculum design teaching framework based on nonmorphological elements in the programming stage and the subsequent design stage. The quantitative test of the Kirkpatrick model is used to explore the influences of nonmorphological elements on teaching effects at the micro level.
Bloom’s Taxonomy, as a tool used to evaluate teaching objectives and effects, is often used to evaluate teaching achievements that are difficult to quantify. Combining educational objectives with teaching links, Bloom’s Taxonomy has been used to judge whether classroom teaching achieves results and whether emerging educational technologies can adapt to modern teaching [50,51]. Bloom’s Taxonomy can reflect the relationship between knowledge acquisition and ability development from the knowledge and cognitive dimension, including memory, comprehension, application, analysis, review, and creation (Figure 3) [52]. This study is primarily based on the classification of the cognitive dimension and its subcategories to judge the effectiveness of the teaching framework. The teaching group examined the realization of these teaching objectives through a questionnaire survey to evaluate the teaching effect of the architectural design teaching framework incorporating nonmorphological elements. This study examines the teaching effect of this teaching framework with reference to the teaching objective evaluation scale of SET (Student Evaluation of Teaching) [53,54]. After testing and optimization, 16 questions were determined (Table 3).
In this study, the Kirkpatrick model [55,56] (Figure 4) was applied to understand students’ acquisition and mastery of nonmorphological elements, and evaluate changes in the students’ learning effect after the application of the teaching framework. In many studies, the Kirkpatrick model has been used to evaluate the effectiveness of teaching methods, such as quantitatively judging the impact of teaching methods on students and whether a certain reform has a positive impact on teaching [57,58]. The Kirkpatrick model was proposed by American scholar Kirkpatrick in 1959, and originated in pedagogy. Compared with the CIPP (context evaluation, input evaluation, process evaluation, product evaluation) model [59], which focuses on the entirety of process evaluation, the Phillips five-level model [60], which is difficult to implement, and the CSE (Center for the Study of Evaluation) model [61], which focuses on the evaluation of teaching and research personnel engaged in reform teaching, the Kirkpatrick model is more appropriate. This practice-oriented training evaluation model can measure the impact of training through four levels—reaction, learning, behavior, and results. The main purpose is to address the two problems of “whether personal ability is improved after teaching” and “whether the improved personal ability is reflected in the results.” The positive feedback of the upper levels would affect the positive evaluation effect of the lower levels.
At the reaction level, the students’ satisfaction of the obtained results of various nonmorphological elements is evaluated, that is, whether obtained nonmorphological elements met the expectations of the subjects; at the learning level, the degree of mastery/understanding of nonmorphological elements in the investigation stage is evaluated; at the behavior level, the degree of change/feedback of nonmorphological elements to the architectural programming and design process is evaluated; and at the result level, the effectiveness/contribution of nonmorphological elements to architectural programming and design results is evaluated. The Kirkpatrick model is used to evaluate the whole process of the “input–analysis–translation–output” of nonmorphological elements in the teaching framework (Table 4).
In this study, an anonymous survey was conducted with students who participated in “Urban Village Renovation Design.” To reduce data bias, 94 students from different grades were invited to answer a questionnaire survey, and 88 valid questionnaires were obtained, with an effective response rate of 94%. In order to obtain effective morphological and nonmorphological element information, the collection of network data and literature data is generally regarded as an effective research method, while the effect of the field research, which extracts and collects detailed elements and information in the site, needs to be tested by experiments. With the support of the urban village community management, students carried out field research via walking records, mapping points, targeted interviews in public spaces, and individual households under the leadership of the community management committee. In general, the respondents of targeted interviews and in-home interviews can reach 20% of the resident population of the community.
In this study, 59 respondents who participated in field research and 29 students who did not participate in field research were set as the experimental group (Group A) and the control group (Group B), respectively. In the investigation stage, we verified whether there was a statistically significant difference between Group A and Group B in the teaching effect of nonmorphological element acquisition through t-testing. When p < 0.05, the t-testing indicates a significant difference between Group A and Group B in the teaching effect of nonmorphological element acquisition.
If such differences did exist, the study applied regression analysis to identify the factors affecting the acquisition, understanding, and application of nonmorphological elements. This considered that the effectiveness of the teaching framework may be related not only to the number of survey sites conducted by students, but also to the accumulation of preliminary survey knowledge, interactions with the field respondents, and the classification and evaluation of the survey results. The study made the following hypotheses and assigned corresponding values (1 = none; 2 = less; 3 = moderate; 4 = more; 5 = a large number of), in the case of the same number of field investigations:
Hypothesis 1.
Online data survey/case collection/knowledge accumulation of nonmorphological elements of the research plot is positively correlated with the effectiveness of the teaching framework.
Hypothesis 2.
In the process of site investigation, interaction with local residents/tenants, such as interviews and exchanges, is positively correlated with the effectiveness of the teaching framework.
Hypothesis 3.
After the survey, the review of the site survey and the formation of a text/graphic research reports/PPTs are positively correlated with the effectiveness of the teaching framework.
X1. Knowledge accumulation: “How much knowledge have you accumulated about the nonmorphological elements of the surveyed plots in the past?”
X2. Interaction with local residents/tenants, such as interviews and communication: “How many interactions did you have with local residents/tenants, such as interviews and communication?”
X3. After the survey, the site survey was reviewed: “How many research reports text/illustrations/PPTs did you review for the site research?”
Y. Each level of effect was obtained using the Kirkpatrick model. The survey used Li Kete’s Five Scaling Method. Sample questions include “During the research stage, I am satisfied with the acquisition of information, such as the historical evolution and context system of the site” and “I have a high understanding of the demand for public service on the site during the research stage.” The Cronbach’s alpha of this measurement instrument was 0.891.
Control variables: According to research on the effectiveness evaluation of teaching frameworks, we excluded factors that may affect this study, such as the age, gender, grade of students, the number of site surveys, and the time spent on the course design.

4. Results

4.1. Qualitative Analysis

The teaching group interviewed 70 third-year undergraduate students before and after utilizing the teaching framework incorporating nonmorphological elements to judge whether the framework played a positive role in the students’ learning process. The teaching group conducted semantic analysis and a keyword summary around the answers obtained from the interviews, and summarized the teaching effect of different cognitive dimensions according to Bloom’s Taxonomy (Table 5). According to the results of qualitative analysis, the teaching framework enables students’ learning and understanding of architectural programming to progress from elementary to advanced. Before learning, most students remained in the memorization stage of the nonmorphological elements of the site, and could collect relevant information about the nonmorphological elements of the site and list their main contents; a few students understood the role of nonmorphological elements and could explain their formation; only a few students considered translating design-related elements from nonmorphological elements into architectural programming and design. After learning, students expanded their list of the types of nonmorphological elements that should be understood to improve the quality of research. Most students could apply nonmorphological elements to architectural programming, solve the social problems of the site, and make architectural designs that meet the needs of users; some students were able to propose optimization methods for the programming stage based on the nonmorphological elements of the site, so as to improve the current situation of the site; a few students could analyze how to translate nonmorphological elements into programming and design, reflect on the current situation of the site, and propose optimization paths and long-term development goals.
The qualitative analysis results show that the teaching framework incorporating nonmorphological elements fundamentally changes students’ understanding of the current situation of the site in the investigation stage, and that the framework can guide students to focus on the potential elements and user needs of the site, to solve the practical problems of the site in the programming stage.

4.2. Quantitative Analysis

Through t-testing (Table 6), it was found that there is a statistically significant difference between Group A and Group B in the evaluation of the role of nonmorphological elements in architectural programming and design (t = 2.627, p = 0.01 < 0.05). According to the Kirkpatrick model evaluation, the average score of the teaching framework with nonmorphological elements in Group A was significantly higher than that in Group B. This indicates that Group A had a good evaluation of the teaching effect and had achieved the expected teaching goal.
As there are significant differences in the understanding and application of nonmorphological elements between Group A and Group B, the influencing factors were further analyzed by regression analysis.

4.2.1. Descriptive Statistics

Table 7 shows the descriptive statistics for all variables in this study. The results show that, in the case of the same number of field investigations, the degree of knowledge accumulation of nonmorphological elements in the early stage is positively correlated with the effects of the teaching framework. The number of on-site interactions with respondents was positively correlated with the effectiveness of the teaching framework. After the investigation, summaries and reviews of the nonmorphological elements were positively correlated with the effect of the teaching framework. These results are consistent with the hypotheses of this study and provide a preliminary basis for verifying the hypothesis.

4.2.2. Hypothesis Testing

Table 8 shows the results of the regression analysis conducted in this study. Hypothesis 1 predicts a positive correlation between the early accumulation of nonmorphological elements and the effectiveness of the teaching framework. The early accumulation of nonmorphological elements has a significant positive impact on the effectiveness of the teaching framework (β = 0.212; p < 0.01), verifying the hypothesis. Therefore, the more students accumulate knowledge of nonmorphological elements of the site before the investigation, the better the effect of the teaching framework. Hypothesis 2 predicts that interaction with respondents during field research has a positive impact on the effectiveness of the teaching framework. Interactive behavior has a significant positive impact on the effectiveness of the teaching framework (β = 0.303; p < 0.05), verifying the hypothesis. Similarly, Hypothesis 3 predicts that the conclusion of the survey has a positive impact on the sorting and review of nonmorphological elements and the effectiveness of the teaching framework. A summary review has a significant positive impact on the effectiveness of the teaching framework (β = 0.251; p < 0.01). The above results show that the three independent variables are positively correlated with the effect of the teaching framework. Therefore, all the hypotheses of this study are confirmed.

5. Discussion

The qualitative analysis based on Bloom’s Taxonomy focuses on revealing that the teaching framework integrating nonmorphological elements helps students understand the site and improves their architectural programming and design ability. The statistical quantitative analysis based on the Kirkpatrick model further affirms the value and significance of the teaching framework and reveals the differences in the positive effects of different nonmorphological elements on teaching. For example, the greater the interactive behaviors between students and respondents, the more real and objective information about the current situation of public service and human needs will be learned, the more profound the understanding, analysis, and translation of nonmorphological elements will be, and the more suitable the proposed programming and design will be to the needs of the site. The knowledge accumulation of nonmorphological elements in the early stage and the summary and review of the investigation results can also have a positive effect on teaching.
Our results show that the acknowledgment of nonmorphological elements in the investigation stage has a positive impact on the authenticity and suitability of architectural design results. The nonmorphological elements discovered in the research stage can help students subconsciously build a real-site environment before programming and design. This enables students to naturally incorporate the “situational teaching” of the site into design thinking such that the form and programming of the building can better fit the actual situation of the site. During the investigation, we found that students were most satisfied with and had the highest mastery of the results of the two nonmorphological elements obtained in the investigation stage—public service and human needs. These results can be translated and fed back into the programming effectively. These findings are consistent with the findings of several researchers. Juan and Alexander [62,63] divided different space types and performed a targeted space design according to the comfort level of psychological perception by studying the behavioral rules and psychological needs of users. Hassanpour et al. [64] explored the context-driven teaching mode and supported dialogues between students and users through modern technology to obtain architectural use demands. Some scholars, including A Puig-Pey [65], asserted that problem-based design teaching methods play an important role in the training of architects and proposed that modern architecture should be oriented toward solving social problems and finding problems from the relationship between life and architecture. Yu et al. [66] emphasized “people-oriented” architectural design, guiding students to focus on the interaction between behavior and space, as well as the relationship between needs and architecture, so as to cultivate students’ social responsibility and design concepts. Some scholars believe that architectural design education should transition from the design method itself to focus on environmental issues, and that the teaching system should be oriented to solve the real needs of users and provide a better user experience [67,68]. Nonmorphological elements, such as public service and human needs, can help students better understand the suitability of architectural programming. On the basis of the initial inquiry of nonmorphological elements, the teaching framework of this study shows clearer investigation details and more appropriate acquisition methods, and performs scientific cognition and induction.
The results also show that the teaching framework should emphasize the importance of historical origin, and economic and social structure, and should appropriately guide students to pay attention to these three nonmorphological elements in the teaching process. The three nonmorphological elements of the urban level—historical origin, economic structure, and social structure—are equally important to the programming and design of buildings. Compared with public service and human needs, these three elements are implicit, more abstract, and difficult to understand, and inconvenient to access and translate. Therefore, the teaching framework needs to appropriately adjust to consciously guide students to focus on the elements of historical origin, economic structure, and social structure, and encourage students to make more authentic and attractive programming. This finding is consistent with some of the literature. Lyu et al. [69] proposed that regional architectural design teaching is the process of shaping local cultural consciousness, reflecting local history, culture, folklore, and religion. Yurtsever [70] discussed the relationship between design and environmental perception on the axis of “individual–experience–perception,” emphasizing the relationship between architectural design and cultural authenticity and integrating this relationship into teaching. Shi et al. [71] mentioned that consistent architectural styles should be maintained in cities, and that traditional elements should be retained in teaching to achieve the on-site architecture. Ivanka [72] incorporated knowledge of urban nature and historical culture into the teaching of architectural design and combined the nonmorphological elements of the environment with digital technology in the form of a digital design studio. Xu [73] discussed the rationality or otherwise of the participation of regional architectural culture in architectural design, discovering that integrating regional culture into architectural teaching will help promote the reform of architectural design teaching practices and the inheritance and promotion of regional architectural culture. Lee et al. [74] demonstrated that construction cost and local economic conditions are indispensable decisive factors in architectural design education, and that the teaching process must reflect views and methods of cost awareness and economic design concepts. Nonmorphological elements, particularly those of historical origin, economic structure, and social structure, fundamentally present the necessary conditions for building into the city, playing an important role in architecture design teaching. Therefore, in contrast to other studies that emphasize one-sided and unilateral factors, the teaching framework proposed in this study clearly shows the investigation details and acquisition methods of these three nonmorphological elements.
Furthermore, this study reveals the necessity of adopting the teaching framework, including nonmorphological aspects, as early as possible in the architecture profession. In traditional design education, junior students concentrate on resolving the programming issues of the site, and they may provide accurate and reasonable answers to the intuitive site demands in the design. Nevertheless, lower-grade students lack an understanding of nonmorphological elements, such as historical origin and economic structure, that are recessive and cannot be expressed through programming and form. As they advance through the grades, when these students enter the middle and senior grades, they will undoubtedly respond positively to the programming needs of the site, but resist accepting the impact of historical origin, economic structure, social structure, and other related recessive elements on architectural programming and design. Therefore, in the design process, the design results may be disconnected from the overall urban environment, local context, economic conditions, population structure, and other attributes, and it would be difficult to adapt to the requirements of integration into the city. Rather than teachers emphasizing or explaining the importance of nonmorphological elements in architectural programming and design to students, students can become used to thinking about nonmorphological elements as an integral part of architectural programming and design when they are in lower grades. Therefore, lower grades can learn from this method. The incorporation of nonmorphological elements, such as historical tracing and economic structure, into the teaching framework and system is conducive to solving substantive problems and forming a broader and more specific framework. When necessary, digital technology, such as virtual reality, can be introduced to help restore the site and form a more real “situational space.” This finding is supported by several studies. Wang et al. [75] conducted multidisciplinary and long-cycle design teaching innovation attempts in middle- and lower-grade architectural education, aiming to bring students’ attention to the bland urban and social environment neglected by architectural education in the past to solve urban problems. They proposed that, in addition to formal design, spatial design, and traditional technical training, students should also learn how architecture intervenes in the ordinary environment. Bozkurt and Grover [76,77] asserted that creating the form of an architectural design studio in the third year of undergraduate study could improve students’ understanding of the teaching framework and foster interdisciplinary collaboration and research, helping students gain a deeper understanding of the construction of real scenes. At the same time, the nonlinear teaching mode enables each student to participate in the course in different ways while gaining relevant knowledge from the course. Hao et al. [78] conducted a research-based teaching reform based on the problem-driven method, forming a teaching framework with the basic steps of “problem analysis,” “problem exploration,” and “summary and communication.” By adjusting the teaching content and assessment methods, the independent exploration ability of junior students improved. Badawi [79] proposed a diversified teaching model and interdisciplinary learning method, combining architectural design courses with a variety of sociology and geography courses, to help junior students cope with complex design problems and fully consider the actual situation of the nonmorphological elements of the site to perform architectural programming and exercise design abilities.

6. Conclusions

With the continuous emergence of new phenomena and the continuous progress of technology and ideas, the task of architectural design is becoming more and more open. This demand is also reflected in the teaching of architectural design. The past methods of architectural aesthetics and evaluation of architectural design with “geometric form” as the core, aimed at a specific type of architectural design training, have undergone fundamental changes, which increasingly reflect the diversity of problem solving and the uncertainty of architectural design direction. More attention has been paid to the training of architectural programming. Therefore, on the basis of traditional morphological elements, architectural design teaching pays more and more attention to information acquisition and learning of nonmorphological elements such as society, economy, and humanity. This study focuses on the teaching experiment of “Urban Village Renovation Design” conducted in the third year of the architecture undergraduate program at Zhejiang University, China, combining the relevant knowledge of sociology, economics, anthropology, and other disciplines. This study divides nonmorphological elements into five aspects: historical origin, economic structure, social structure, public service, and human needs. It builds a comprehensive research and teaching framework that includes morphological and nonmorphological elements. The experiment shows that the teaching framework can make students consider the practical problems of the site more comprehensively while successfully improving their architectural programming and design, which is of great significance for architectural programming and even architectural design. In addition, the research also analyzes the difference of the positive effects of different nonmorphological elements on architectural design results, and discusses how to effectively acquire and connect nonmorphological elements with subsequent architectural design teaching links.
Although the nonmorphological elements obtained by students through field research can create connections and combine fragmented scene information to form a real and comprehensive scene construction, the acquisition and cognition of nonmorphological elements have proven to be of great significance for subsequent programming and design. However, in the process of formulating teaching tasks, teachers need to distinguish differences between the cognition of morphological and nonmorphological elements in different environments after fully recognizing complex social problems, rather than directly applying the teaching framework proposed in this study to various types of architectural design teaching. The excavation of social reality needs to be understood and guided by teachers; otherwise, the teaching will fall back into the vortex of scripted teaching.
Traditional architectural education has greatly improved the technology and skillset of architectural design, which has been crucial to China’s high-speed construction in recent decades. In today’s new era of demand refinement, and with a lack of a reference model, architectural education needs to be re-evaluated and reconstructed. This study discusses the classification and effective ways to acquire nonmorphological elements, etc. However, there is no complete binary opposition between morphological and nonmorphological elements. After learning, cognition, and translation, nonmorphological elements are not only reflected in architectural programming, but also in the creation of architectural spatial forms. The scientific process and method of this kind of translation need to be further studied and clarified. In addition, students in the new era also reflect great differences in their understanding of external design conditions, such as morphological and nonmorphological elements. The study found that students with a deeper understanding of society have a stronger ability to translate nonmorphological elements, and that senior students have a deeper understanding of nonmorphological elements. To break the barrier set by morphological aesthetics in architectural education, this study simplified the research process and eliminated the influence of individual differences on the research results. In follow-up studies, the teaching group will conduct interviews to determine how well different students comprehend nonmorphological elements, including how they are selected, used, and advanced afterward. As part of the teaching framework of “Architectural design incorporating nonmorphological elements in the research phase,” the team will seek to develop personalized teaching methods for different students. We will further examine the ongoing impact of this teaching framework on the teaching of architectural design courses.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Z.Q.; methodology, Z.Q.; software, Z.Q. and S.W.; validation, X.C. and X.X.; formal analysis, Z.Q. and S.W.; resources, Z.Q. and S.W.; data curation, X.C. and X.X.; investigation, Z.Q., S.W., X.C., Q.C., J.K. and X.X.; writing—original draft preparation, Z.Q., S.W., X.C., Q.C. and J.K.; writing—review and editing, Z.Q., S.W., X.X., Q.C. and J.K.; visualization, Z.Q., S.W., X.C., Q.C. and J.K.; supervision, X.X.; project administration, Z.Q. and X.X.; funding acquisition, Z.Q. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (52278044) and Ministry of Education Industry-University Cooperative Education Project (22097124193954).

Data Availability Statement

Data supporting reported results can be found at https://pan.zju.edu.cn/share/769593c50993ef6de0d7d34c47 (accessed on 28 July 2023).

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to express their sincere gratitude to the support received from the students of Zhejiang University in collecting the data, and the assistance in the research work provided by the teaching group of architectural design course in the third year of the undergraduate program.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors have no conflict of interest to declare. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Sinclair, B.R.; Furlan, R. Comprehensive Studio, Architectural Accreditation, Cultural Diversity: Considering Conditions, Respecting Context and Pursuing Competence. In Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium on Architecture of the 21st Century: In Search of New Paradigms, Baden, Germany, 1–5 August 2016. [Google Scholar]
  2. Salingaros, N.A.; Masden, K.G. Intelligence-Based Design: A Sustainable Foundation for Worldwide Architectural Education. Archnet-IJAR Int. J. Archit. Res. 2008, 2, 129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Cody, J.W.; Steinhardt, N.S.; Atkin, T. Chinese Architecture and the Beaux-Arts. In Chinese Architecture and the Beaux-Arts; University of Hawaii Press: Honolulu, HI, USA, 2011; ISBN 978-0-8248-6101-8. [Google Scholar]
  4. Ruan, X. Accidental Affinities—American Beaux-Arts in Twentieth-Century Chinese Architectural Education and Practice. J. Soc. Archit. Hist. 2002, 61, 30–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Wang, Y. Beaux-Arts Composition and Its Evolution in China’s Architectural Education A Case Study of Architectural Education at Nanjing Institute of Technology. J. ASIAN Archit. Build. Eng. 2018, 17, 199–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Royal Institute of British Architects. Available online: https://www.architecture.com/ (accessed on 10 August 2023).
  7. Fan, L.Y.; Wang, X.Q. Architecture Design Curriculum Reform Practice Triggered by the British Architectural Education and Certification System. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2014, 638–640, 2393–2396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Departement Architektur; ETH Zürich. Jahrbuch 2015. DARCH, ETH Zürich; gta Verlag: Zürich, Switzerland, 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Na, W. Methodology of Advanced Architecture Education Reform a New System for Architecture—Reflections on the Teaching Practice of the”Advanced Architecture Design” Course at the University of Pennsvlvania. Architect 2021, 5, 100–111. [Google Scholar]
  10. Gu, S.; Li, J.; Wang, M.; Ma, H. Post-Renewal Evaluation of an Urbanized Village with Cultural Resources Based on Multi Public Satisfaction: A Case Study of Nantou Ancient City in Shenzhen. Land 2023, 12, 211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Li, D.; Yu, L.; Huang, G.; Zhou, S.; Feng, H.; Wang, Y. A Real Options-Based Investment-Income Valuation Model for Old Community Renewal Projects in China. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2023; ahead-of-print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Li, Y.; Gauthier, P. The Evolution of Residential Buildings and Urban Tissues in Guangzhou, China: Morphological and Typological Perspectives. Urb. Morphol. 2014, 18, 129–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Chen, F. Interpreting Urban Micromorphology in China: Case Studies from Suzhou. Urban Morphol. 2012, 16, 133–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Whitehand, J.W.R. British Urban Morphology: The Conzenian Tradition. URBAN Morphol. 2001, 5, 103–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Stojanovski, T. What Explains Neighborhood Type Statistically?—Mixing Typo-Morphological and Spatial Analytic Approaches in Urban Morphology. In Proceedings of the 24th ISUF International Conference, City and Territory in the Globalization Age, Valencia, Spain, 27–29 September 2017. [Google Scholar]
  16. Pasha, Y.N. Presence of Culture in Architectural Education: A Case Study of Metu School of Architecture (1). METU J. Fac. Archit. 2020, 37, 95–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. About the Initiative. Available online: https://new-european-bauhaus.europa.eu/about/about-initiative_en (accessed on 11 August 2023).
  18. Jesus Rosado-Garcia, M.; Kubus, R.; Arguelles-Bustillo, R.; Jesus Garcia-Garcia, M. A New European Bauhaus for a Culture of Transversality and Sustainability. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Beninde, J.; Veith, M.; Hochkirch, A. Biodiversity in Cities Needs Space: A Meta-Analysis of Factors Determining Intra-Urban Biodiversity Variation. Ecol. Lett. 2015, 18, 581–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Cole, R.J. Transitioning from Green to Regenerative Design. Build. Res. Inf. 2012, 40, 39–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. The Application of Sociological Research Methods to Architectural Design. Available online: https://www.webofscience.com/wos/alldb/full-record/CSCD:3373939 (accessed on 11 August 2023).
  22. Barker, A. Limiting Binary Thinking: Architectural Design in Historic Urban Contexts (1). S. Afr. J. Art Hist. 2020, 35, 121–149. [Google Scholar]
  23. Goncalves de Freitas, P.M.; Tirello, R.A. Architectural Conservation in Brazilian Architecture and Urban Design Undergraduation Courses: The Teaching Disarticulations between Theory and Project Practice. In Conservation of Architectural Heritage (CAH); Comer, D.C., Versaci, A., Amer, M.S., Eds.; Elsevier Science BV: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2016; Volume 225, pp. 303–308. [Google Scholar]
  24. Zallio, M.; Clarkson, P.J. Inclusion, Diversity, Equity and Accessibility in the Built Environment: A Study of Architectural Design Practice. Build. Environ. 2021, 206, 108352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Zhong, Y. Analysis on the Problems in the Process of Implementing Architectural Programming. In Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Arts, Design and Contemporary Education, Moscow, Russia, 23–25 May 2016; McAnally, E., Hylind, M., Volodina, T., Zhang, Y., Solovjeva, I., Eds.; Atlantis Press: Paris, France, 2016; Volume 64, pp. 711–713. [Google Scholar]
  26. Reflections and Improvements on Architectural Programming: Programming and Post-Occ Upancy Evaluation to Whole-Process Consultation. Available online: https://www.webofscience.com/wos/alldb/full-record/CSCD:6165937 (accessed on 11 August 2023).
  27. Liu, Q. Application of Architectural Programming in Architectural Design. In Proceedings of the 2019 5th International Conference on Humanities and Social Science Research (ICHSSR 2019), Guilin, China, 26–28 April 2019; Du, X., Huang, C., Zhong, Y., Eds.; Atlantis Press: Paris, France, 2019; Volume 319, pp. 100–103. [Google Scholar]
  28. Masseck, T. Living Labs in Architecture as Innovation Arenas within Higher Education Institutions. Energy Procedia 2017, 115, 383–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Voss, K.; Hendel, S.; Stark, M. Solar Decathlon Europe—A Review on the Energy Engineering of Experimental Solar Powered Houses. Energy Build. 2021, 251, 111336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Baghi, Y.; Ma, Z.; Robinson, D.; Boehme, T. Innovation in Sustainable Solar-Powered Net-Zero Energy Solar Decathlon Houses: A Review and Showcase. Buildings 2021, 11, 171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Chen, Q.; García de Soto, B.; Adey, B.T. Construction Automation: Research Areas, Industry Concerns and Suggestions for Advancement. Autom. Constr. 2018, 94, 22–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Sahin, A. Architectural Responses to Societal Challenges via Design-Build Programs in Architectural Education. In Architectural Research Addressing Societal Challenges; DaCosta, M.C., Roseta, F., Lages, J.P., DaCosta, S.C., Eds.; CRC Press-Balkema: Leiden, The Netherlands, 2017; Volumes 1–2, pp. 1137–1144. [Google Scholar]
  33. Aydemir, A.Z.; Jacoby, S. Architectural Design Research in Small Practices. Archnet-IJAR, 2023; ahead-of-print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Wu, S. Design/Build Teaching Practice in Architectural Design Basic Course Based on CDIO Mode. In Proceedings of the 2015 3rd International Conference on Education Reform and Management Innovation (ERMI 2015), Bangkok, Thailand, 5–6 September 2015; Lee, G., Ed.; Information Engineering Research Inst: Newark, NJ, USA, 2015; Volume 79, pp. 50–54. [Google Scholar]
  35. Uzunkaya, A.; Paker Kahvecioglu, N. (Architectural) Design Research through Reflection: A Sub-Approach under “Research by Design”. Open House Int. 2022, 47, 688–709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Lucchi, E.; Delera, A.C. Enhancing the Historic Public Social Housing through a User-Centered Design-Driven Approach. Buildings 2020, 10, 159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Simon, M. Future Studio: Preparing Students for Practice in the Global Context. In Architectural Research Addressing Societal Challenges; DaCosta, M.C., Roseta, F., Lages, J.P., DaCosta, S.C., Eds.; CRC Press-Balkema: Leiden, The Netherlands, 2017; Volumes 1–2, pp. 875–880. [Google Scholar]
  38. EAAE Charter on Architectural Research Approved by the GA in Madrid. Available online: https://www.eaae.be/event/eaae-charter-on-architectural-research-update/ (accessed on 10 August 2023).
  39. Li, L.; Yang, X.; Xiang, X.; Kong, L.; Dai, J.; Zeng, Q. Integrating Sustainable Manufacturing into Architectural Design Teaching through Architectural Design Competitions. Buildings 2023, 13, 1023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Ulrich, R.S. View through a Window May Influence Recovery from Surgery. Science 1984, 224, 420–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Zmudzinska-Nowak, M. Searching for Legible City Form: Kevin Lynch’s Theory in Contemporary Perspective. J. Urban Technol. 2003, 10, 19–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Liu, Y.; He, S.; Wu, F.; Webster, C. Urban Villages under China’s Rapid Urbanization: Unregulated Assets and Transitional Neighbourhoods. Habitat Int. 2010, 34, 135–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Lim, T.S.Y.; Hassan, N.; Ghaffarianhoseini, A.; Daud, M.N. The Relationship between Satisfaction towards Neighbourhood Facilities and Social Trust in Urban Villages in Kuala Lumpur. Cities 2017, 67, 85–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Fu, H.; Zhou, G.; Sun, H.; Liu, Y. Life Satisfaction and Migration Intention of Residents in Shrinking Cities: Case of Yichun City in China. J. Urban Plan. Dev. 2022, 148, 5021062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Haghighatian, M. The Effects of Urbanization on Social Relations in the city of Bushehr. Res. Urban Plan. 2012, 43, 39–50. [Google Scholar]
  46. Vemuri, A.W.; Morgan Grove, J.; Wilson, M.A.; Burch, W.R. A Tale of Two Scales: Evaluating the Relationship Among Life Satisfaction, Social Capital, Income, and the Natural Environment at Individual and Neighborhood Levels in Metropolitan Baltimore. Environ. Behav. 2011, 43, 3–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Dibagi, S. ghasemzadeh Brain Storming and Association in Mathematics Education. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 31, 774–777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Porras Álvarez, S.; Lee, K.; Park, J.; Rieh, S.-Y. A Comparative Study on Sustainability in Architectural Education in Asia—With a Focus on Professional Degree Curricula. Sustainability 2016, 8, 290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Ghonim, M.; Eweda, N. Best Practices in Managing, Supervising, and Assessing Architectural Graduation Projects: A Quantitative Study. Front. Archit. Res. 2018, 7, 424–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Quan, J.-C.; Luo, C.; Yang, F.; Qiu, H.-P. Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives in Information System Courses. In Proceedings of the 2016 2nd International Conference on Modern Education and Social Science (MESS 2016), Wuhan, China, 15–17 April 2016; Destech Publications, Inc: Lancaster, PA, USA, 2016; pp. 399–404. [Google Scholar]
  51. Pikhart, M.; Klimova, B. Utilization of Linguistic Aspects of Bloom’s Taxonomy in Blended Learning. Educ. Sci. 2019, 9, 235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Doyle, S.; Senske, N. Between Design and Digital: Bridging the Gaps in Architectural Education. In Proceedings of the AAE 2016 International Peer-Reviewed Conference, London, UK, 7 April 2016; pp. 192–209. [Google Scholar]
  53. Marsh, H.W. Students’ Evaluations of University Teaching: Dimensionality, Reliability, Validity, Potential Biases and Usefulness. In The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: An Evidence-Based Perspective; Perry, R.P., Smart, J.C., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2007; pp. 319–383. ISBN 978-1-4020-5742-7. [Google Scholar]
  54. SET Questions Starting Summer 2020. Available online: https://www.american.edu/provost/oira/set/new_questions.cfm (accessed on 18 July 2023).
  55. Tahmasebi, M.; Adibi, P.; Zare-Farashbandi, F.; Papi, A.; Rahimi, A. The Educational Role of Clinical Informationist on Improving Clinical Education among Medical Students: Based on Kirkpatrick Model. J. Educ. Health Promot. 2020, 9, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Bates, R. A Critical Analysis of Evaluation Practice: The Kirkpatrick Model and the Principle of Beneficence. Eval. Program Plann. 2004, 27, 341–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Praslova, L. Adaptation of Kirkpatrick’s Four Level Model of Training Criteria to Assessment of Learning Outcomes and Program Evaluation in Higher Education. Educ. Assess. Eval. Account. 2010, 22, 215–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Paull, M.; Whitsed, C.; Girardi, A. Applying the Kirkpatrick Model: Evaluating Interaction for Learning Framework Curriculum Interventions. Issues Educ. Res. 2016, 26, 490–507. [Google Scholar]
  59. Karatas, H.; Fer, S. Evaluation of English Curriculum at Yildiz Technical University Using CIPP Model. Egit. Ve Bilim 2009, 34, 47. [Google Scholar]
  60. Feit, M.E.; Philips, J.B.; Coats, T. Tightrope of Advocacy: Critical Race Methods as a Lens on Nonprofit Mediation between Fear and Trust in the U.S. Census. Adm. Theory Prax. 2022, 44, 23–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Linn, R.L. The Design and Evaluation of Educational Assessment and Accountability Systems: National Center for Research on Evaluation, CRESST/CSE; Graduate School of Education & Information Studies, University of California: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  62. Higuera-Trujillo, J.L.; Llinares, C.; Macagno, E. The Cognitive-Emotional Design and Study of Architectural Space: A Scoping Review of Neuroarchitecture and Its Precursor Approaches. Sensors 2021, 21, 2193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Coburn, A.; Vartanian, O.; Kenett, Y.N.; Nadal, M.; Hartung, F.; Hayn-Leichsenring, G.; Navarrete, G.; González-Mora, J.L.; Chatterjee, A. Psychological and Neural Responses to Architectural Interiors. Cortex 2020, 126, 217–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Hassanpour, B.; Şahin, N.P. Technology Adoption in Architectural Design Studios for Educational Activities. Technol. Pedagog. Educ. 2021, 30, 491–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Puig-Pey, A. The Architect: Training, Skills and Professional Practice. Archit. City Environ. 2017, 12, 301–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Yu, Q. Exploration on Teaching Reform of Architectural Design Courses from the Perspective of MOOCs. In Proceedings of the 2020 International Conference on Machine Learning and Big Data Analytics for IoT Security and Privacy, Shanghai, China, 6–8 November 2020; MacIntyre, J., Zhao, J., Ma, X., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 309–314. [Google Scholar]
  67. Van der Linden, V.; Dong, H.; Heylighen, A. Tracing Architects’ Fragile Knowing about Users in the Socio-Material Environment of Design Practice. Des. Stud. 2019, 63, 65–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Alipour, L.; Faizi, M.; Moradi, A.M.; Akrami, G. The Impact of Designers’ Goals on Design-by-Analogy. Des. Stud. 2017, 51, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Guifen, L.; Yu-Che, H.; Bei, S. A Study for Application Research of “Regional” Architectural Culture in Architectural Design Courses. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2019, 330, 22012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Yurtsever, B.; Polatoğlu, C. A Secret Component in Architectural Design Studio: The “Filtering” Concept. Open House Int. 2018, 43, 60–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Shi, Y.; Xu, C.; Xu, Y. Research on the Practice of the New Education Mode Reform Based on the Teaching of Architectural Design Course and the Thinking of Future Architectural Education. Nanotechnol. Environ. Eng. 2021, 6, 49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Iordanova, I.; Tidafi, T. Using Historical Know-How to Model Design References. In Computer Aided Architectural Design Futures 2005; Martens, B., Brown, A., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2005; pp. 197–206. [Google Scholar]
  73. Xu, Y. The Exploration of the Regional Architecture Culture Intervening in Teaching Practice of Architecture Design; Atlantis Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 83–86. [Google Scholar]
  74. Lee, S.; Tabb, P.; Rogers, J.; Rybkowski, Z.; Van Zandt, S. The Impacts of Cost Determinism in Architectural Foundation Design Education: An Analysis of Foundation Design Studio. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2016, 216, 923–932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Fangji, W. Oriented Architectural Design Teaching—The Caup Special Program “Home Above Market” at Tongji University. Landsc. Archit. Front. 2018, 6, 72–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Bozkurt, E. Adaptation of the Proposed Unit System for Third Year Architectural Design Studio. SHS Web Conf. 2018, 48, 1040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Grover, R.; Emmitt, S.; Copping, A. The Typological Learning Framework: The Application of Structured Precedent Design Knowledge in the Architectural Design Studio. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 2018, 28, 1019–1038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Hao, L.-J.; Xiao, Z.-T. Research on Information-Based Teaching in Reform and Practice of Architectural Design. Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 2017, 13, 3493–3500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Badawi, A.M.; Abdullah, M.R. Interdisciplinary Design Education: Development of an Elective Course in Architecture and Engineering Departments. J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 2021, 68, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Buildings 13 02255 g001
Figure 1. “Urban village renovation design” location site.
Figure 1. “Urban village renovation design” location site.
Buildings 13 02255 g001
Buildings 13 02255 g002
Figure 2. Teaching framework for the acquisition of morphological and nonmorphological elements.
Figure 2. Teaching framework for the acquisition of morphological and nonmorphological elements.
Buildings 13 02255 g002
Buildings 13 02255 g003
Figure 3. Bloom’s Taxonomy cognitive hierarchy schematic.
Figure 3. Bloom’s Taxonomy cognitive hierarchy schematic.
Buildings 13 02255 g003
Buildings 13 02255 g004
Figure 4. Kirkpatrick model hierarchy diagram.
Figure 4. Kirkpatrick model hierarchy diagram.
Buildings 13 02255 g004
Table 1. Architectural program structure in different universities.
Table 1. Architectural program structure in different universities.
UniversityInitialNat. Accr./
Intl. Accr.		DegreeYearsQS Rank
(Architecture)		THE Rank
(Arts and Humanities)
Tsinghua UniversityTHUNBAABArch + MArch5 + 3837
Southeast UniversitySEUNBAABArch + MArch5 + 351–100301–400
Tianjin UniversityTJUNBAABArch + MArch5 + 330301–400
Tongji UniversityTongjiNBAABArch + MArch5 + 313101–125
South China University of TechnologySCUTNBAABArch + MArch5 + 351–100-
Xi’an University of Architecture and TechnologyXAUATNBAABArch + MArch5 + 3--
Harbin Institute of TechnologyHITNBAABArch + MArch5 + 351–100301–400
Chongqing UniversityXQUNBAABArch + MArch5 + 351–100601+
Beijing University of Civil Engineering and ArchitectureBUCEANBAABArch + MArch5 + 3--
Hunan UniversityHNUNBAABArch + MArch5 + 3-501–600
Huazhong University of Science and TechnologyHUSTNBAABArch + MArch5 + 351–100251–300
Nanjing Tech UniversityNJTechNBAABArch + MArch5 + 3--
Nanjing UniversityNJUNBAABArch + MArch5 + 351–100126–150
Zhejiang UniversityZJUNBAABArch + MArch5 + 349176–200
Table 2. The theme and pedagogical aims of “Urban Village Renovation Design”.
Table 2. The theme and pedagogical aims of “Urban Village Renovation Design”.
YearThemeTeaching PurposeDominant Nonmorphological Elements
2016Non-architectural buildings—The Past and Present of Lou’s VillageUnderstand the positioning of “Small grid in Big grid” urban village in the city, and explore the effective development path of an urban village.Public Service, Human needs
2017A city or a village—the organic renewal of Yang’s PailauExplore the “village in the landscape,” reflecting the common effect of urbanization and landscape pattern on the village in the city.History Tracing
2018The city in the village—the Quadratic solution of Yile Village regeneration designUnderstand that “Village in city” and “City in village” evolve together, and balance the synergistic relationship between “Village in city” and “City in village.”Social Structure, Human needs
2019Co-evolution—A translation of modernity in Wulian East CommunityOn the basic of a round of rectification in the urban village, the “Recognition” of the Urban Village to find new “Urban Village” development problem-solving ideas.Economic Structure, Public Service
2020Based on the “TOD (transit-oriented development)” model—Community Service CentreBased on the simplified TOD development model, a community neighborhood center is proposed to find a new property form that integrates the transportation system and community service.Economic Structure, Social Structure
2021Reverse iteration—An exogenous interpretation of the Wulian West CommunityBy promoting the development of some spatial mechanism that brings vitality in the Urban Village, form the development model of anti-formatting influence on the surrounding urban community.Public Service, Human needs
2022Conjunctive nesting—urban block renewal in a “Dislocation” contextUnderstand the dislocation between the Urban Village and the surrounding urban environment, by placing special programming in the surrounding plots, and form the urban design and architectural design method of boundary integration.Social Structure, Human needs
2023Repositioning the Base—Renewal of the built environment in multiple contextsPlace a special programming in the surrounding plots of urban villages to respond to the conflict between the needs of urban villages and the surrounding urban communities, and find a suitable design method.Public Service, Human needs
Table 3. Survey questions for evaluating teaching effects.
Table 3. Survey questions for evaluating teaching effects.
NO.Question Item
1In the teaching of architectural design, teachers clearly demonstrate the knowledge of nonmorphological elements.
2In the teaching of architectural design, teachers clearly put forward the method of how to integrate nonmorphological elements into architectural programming and design through the teaching framework.
3Teachers guides the students to investigate the nonmorphological elements in the site.
4Teachers strive to promote students’ interest in the nonmorphological elements of the research site.
5Teachers encourage students to actively explore the nonmorphological elements of the site and integrate them into the architectural programming and design.
6Teachers provide practical feedback to students on architectural programming and design, assessing the integration of nonmorphological elements.
7Teachers adopt effective measures to test how well students have mastered and understand what they have learned.
8The final results of architectural design teaching are closely related to the knowledge of nonmorphological elements in the research stage.
9The overall quality of the nonmorphological elements investigation knowledge imparted in architectural design teaching is satisfactory.
10The knowledge of nonmorphological elements pique students’ interest easily.
11In the architectural design course, you have acquired a satisfactory accumulation of knowledge of nonmorphological elements.
12In the teaching of architectural design, teachers are good at explaining the knowledge of nonmorphological elements.
13The overall quality of nonmorphological elements knowledge taught in the architectural design course is satisfactory.
14In the architectural design course, you have a strong ability to acquire nonmorphological elements knowledge on your own.
15You have clear motivation to learn nonmorphological elements knowledge.
16By the end of the course, you have a much better understanding of nonmorphological elements than at the beginning.
Table 4. The use of the Kirkpatrick model to evaluate the indicators of the teaching framework.
Table 4. The use of the Kirkpatrick model to evaluate the indicators of the teaching framework.
Research
Element		Hierarchical ClassificationResearch Detail
Morphological elementMacro: A section of a cityThe location characteristics of the area where the site is located in the overall urban environment.
The urban texture of the area and surrounding area where the site is located.
Network structure and traffic in and around the area where the site is located.
The interface features and skyline of the site and surrounding of the site.
Middle: A block in an areaBuilding economy index such as current density and floor area ratio in the site.
The street texture and spatial scale in the site.
Transportation systems in the site.
Landscape system and open space system in the site.
Micro: Nodes in the blockBuilding features in the site, such as building distribution, direction, height, horizontal and vertical structure, and building plane.
Important nodes and landmarks in the site: such as ancient trees and statues.
Nonmorphological elementsHistorical TracingHistorical evolution and context system of the site.
Cultural characteristics, customs, and habits of the site.
Development orientation, politics, religion of the site.
Economic StructureThe work performed by householders and tenants in the site.
Economic status of householders and tenants in the site, such as per capita disposable income, and main economic sources.
The rent in the site, the gap with the average rent in the city.
Social StructureDemographic structure in the site, such as age structure and family status.
Ideological structure in the site: organizational structure, institutional structure, and community management mode.
The relationship between the explicit tenant and the hidden householder in the site.
Public ServicePublic service related to survival in the site, such as employment, social security, social welfare, and social assistance.
Public service related to development in the site, such as compulsory education, basic health care, culture, and sports.
Public service related to daily life in the site, such as travel, communication, environmental protection facilities.
Public service related to security in the site, such as consumption security, national defense security, life security.
The scale, layout, service content, and level of supporting facilities around the site are available.
The actual bearing capacity and usage of the supporting facilities around the site.
Human NeedsThe needs for the site of history, culture, customs, and other spiritual
The needs for public service in the site.
Table 5. Evaluation of teaching effects obtained through Bloom’s Taxonomy.
Table 5. Evaluation of teaching effects obtained through Bloom’s Taxonomy.
Cognitive
Dimension		Sub-CategoriesAchievementsExamples
1. Memory1.1 RecognitionEvoke past experience and memories of nonmorphological elements when conducting pre-design research and architectural programmingUnderstand the role of nonmorphological elements of the site such as history, culture, and economy in architectural programming and design
1.2 RecallRecall precisely what they have learned during the exploratory design programming phaseItemize the content related to the nonmorphological elements of the site, such as the service level and coverage of public service facilities
2. Comprehension2.1 InterpretationClarify the meaning of nonmorphological elements in the research and programming stage from different perspectivesClarify the meaning of social structure, public service in the research and programming stage from different perspectives
2.2 IllustrationFind and explain the influence of nonmorphological elements on the programming and design phase of architectural designDescribe the various aspects of nonmorphological elements that may be involved in architectural programming and design
2.3 CategorizationDetermine what category certain nonmorphological elements belong toRecognize that the service level of the public service facilities around the site belongs to the nonmorphological elements of the site public service
2.4 ConclusionSummarize the meaning and points of nonmorphological elements in the research phaseSummarize the strategies and methods of applying nonmorphological elements in the research stage in the architectural programming and design stage
2.5 DeductionInference and judgment are made according to the basic principles of nonmorphological elementsPredict the benefits of nonmorphological elements for architectural programming and design
2.6 ComparisonCompare the similarities and differences in various aspects of nonmorphological elementsExplain the similarities and differences between social and economic structures involved in nonmorphological elements
2.7 ExplanationConstruct the relationship diagram of various aspects of nonmorphological elements and architectural programming and designList the preconditions and influences on architectural programming and design from the aspect of historical origin
3. Application3.1 ExecutionUse the knowledge of nonmorphological elements in the research stage to complete the architectural programming and design tasksCreate architectural programming based on the nonmorphological elements of the site
3.2 ImplementationSelect and apply nonmorphological elements to accomplish new architectural designProgramming and design by using local nonmorphological elements, such as the historical origins of the site
4. Analysis4.1 DifferenceDistinguish between relevant and irrelevant or important and unimportant parts of nonmorphological elements according to the siteAccording to the site conditions of exploratory design, distinguish the relevant and irrelevant elements in architectural programming and design
4.2 ArrangementClarify the hierarchical structure of the nonmorphological elements of the site and the interaction between each partShow the hierarchy of the components of the nonmorphological elements in the form of a diagram
4.3 CombinationDiscover the hidden elements related to nonmorphological elements in architectural programming and designExplore ways architectural design can promote the programming stage by combining historical and contextual characteristics
5. Review5.1 ExaminationVerify the rationality of applying nonmorphological elements knowledge in the architectural programming stageList the inconsistencies in the application of nonmorphological elements in the architectural programming stage
5.2 JudgementIdentify deficiencies or contradictions in the programming and provide a new programming content in the architectural programming stagePropose a better approach to the application of nonmorphological elements in the architectural programming stage
6. Creation6.1 SummaryRationalize the architectural programming stage by proposing appropriate concepts and ideas based on architectural design needs and nonmorphological elementsPropose further the optimization strategy based on summarizing the application strategy of existing nonmorphological elements in architectural programming and design
6.2 PlanDevelop plans or procedures for the application of nonmorphological elements in architectural programming and facilitiesProvide a description or outline of how to apply the knowledge of nonmorphological elements in the architectural programming phase
6.3 CompletionComplete the architectural programming and design phase of exploratory designCompleted the design of “Urban Village Renovation Design” in the third year of undergraduate study
Table 6. The results of t-testing.
Table 6. The results of t-testing.
Group AGroup Btp
Kirkpatrick Model Questions
Average ScoreStandard DeviationAverage ScoreStandard Deviation
233.6331.404213.1739.7082.6270.010
Table 7. Descriptive statistics.
Table 7. Descriptive statistics.
Variate *NMinimumMaximumMeanS.D.
Gender88121.640.484
Age88182923.651.716
Year88152.601.282
Whether site survey88121.330.473
Accumulate88253.800.819
Interaction88153.101.094
Review88153.760.959
Total points88112306226.8935.474
* Notes: N = 88. Gender coded (1 = males, 2 = females); Year coded (1 = fourth year of undergraduate, 2 = fifth year of undergraduate, 3 = First-year graduate, 4 = Second-year graduate, 5 = Third-year graduate); Whether site survey coded (1 = yes, 2 = no); Accumulation of nonmorphological elements (1 = not at all, 2 = less, 3 = moderation; 4 = more; 5 = a large number of); Interaction with respondents during the survey (1 = not at all, 2 = less, 3 = moderation; 4 = more; 5 = a large number of); Review the nonmorphological elements after the investigation (1 = not at all, 2 = less, 3 = moderation; 4 = more; 5 = a large number of).
Table 8. Results of regression tests.
Table 8. Results of regression tests.
Variable 1Unstandardized CoefficientsStandardized CoefficientstpCollinearity Diagnostics
BS.E.BetaVIFTOL
Accumulate9.1814.0510.2122.2660.026 *1.0080.992
Interaction9.8123.2430.3033.0250.003 **1.1530.867
Review9.3013.7050.2512.5100.014 *1.1570.864
R20.272
ΔR20.246
F valueF (3.84) = 10.449, p = 0.000
1 Notes: N = 88. * p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Qiu, Z.; Wang, S.; Chen, X.; Xiang, X.; Chen, Q.; Kong, J. Research on the Influence of Nonmorphological Elements’ Cognition on Architectural Design Education in Universities: Third Year Architecture Core Studio in Special Topics “Urban Village Renovation Design”. Buildings 2023, 13, 2255. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13092255

AMA Style

Qiu Z, Wang S, Chen X, Xiang X, Chen Q, Kong J. Research on the Influence of Nonmorphological Elements’ Cognition on Architectural Design Education in Universities: Third Year Architecture Core Studio in Special Topics “Urban Village Renovation Design”. Buildings. 2023; 13(9):2255. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13092255

Chicago/Turabian Style

Qiu, Zhi, Su Wang, Xiang Chen, Xingwei Xiang, Qingqing Chen, and Junqiao Kong. 2023. "Research on the Influence of Nonmorphological Elements’ Cognition on Architectural Design Education in Universities: Third Year Architecture Core Studio in Special Topics “Urban Village Renovation Design”" Buildings 13, no. 9: 2255. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13092255

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop