A Teaching Experiment in Architectural Design Focused on Efficiency: A Study on the Active and Passive Methods of Site Information Acquisition

Abstract

An important goal in the reform of architectural design education is to instruct students in ways of acquiring relevant site information quickly and efficiently during a design project, and then integrating that information into their architectural designs. This study focuses on a teaching experiment conducted within the “Urban Village Renovation Design” course for third-year undergraduates at Zhejiang University. This study aims to improve teaching efficiency by combining active and passive information acquisition methods during the site information acquisition stage. A teaching experiment on “Urban Village Renovation Design” was conducted with third-year undergraduates at Zhejiang University, comparing two experimental groups based on whether the teacher provides site information reports (i.e., passive information acquisition). The study explores efficient methods for acquiring different types of site information in architectural design teaching and develops a matching framework. It evaluates the impact of active vs. passive methods on students’ cognitive levels, using Bloom’s taxonomy, and quantitatively tests cognitive efficiency differences through the ROI model. Results show that combining both methods yields the highest teaching efficiency, with specific types of information corresponding to effective active or passive acquisition methods. This study explores which research methods can yield beneficial site information more efficiently and clarifies the role of previously overlooked passive information acquisition methods in site cognition, providing theoretical support for the design of teaching plans during the research phase. From a practical standpoint, it is suggested that instructors provide certain site information directly rather than have students acquire it independently, to shorten the research phase of teaching and simultaneously enhance site cognition efficiency.

1. Introduction

The goal of higher education is to cultivate high-quality talented individuals that meet the needs of social and industrial development [1]. As an ancient discipline with a history of one hundred years, architecture has been developed around demand since its inception. It has adapted to the needs of urban development and construction in different eras and has given back to architectural education in colleges and universities accordingly. Architectural education initially relied mainly on traditional master–apprentice teaching and individual experience accumulation [2]. During the Industrial Revolution, Durand proposed a “typological” and “standardized” professional teaching model [3], which promoted the development of architectural education. In the stage of rapid urban expansion and extensive incremental development, architectural education promoted Durand’s teaching model and cultivated a large number of skilled and talented individuals who were proficient in the use of typological architectural space organization [4]. However, in the past 20 years, as global urban construction models have gradually shifted from extensive to intensive [5], the speed of urban construction has slowed down and new technologies have been continuously updated, and society has paid more and more attention to new needs [6]. In addition, due to the impact of special periods (such as the COVID-19 pandemic), people have begun to reflect on and innovate traditional urban and architectural design goals, positioning, and methods [7,8]. The transformation of urban space or architectural space has led to new uses of old buildings, such as the transformation of industrial buildings into urban living land [9], and the original typified traditional architectural space organization method has become inaccurate. New building types that have never appeared in the past, such as Fangcang Hospital [10], low-altitude infrastructure, and 5G signal towers, have emerged one after another, leaving architects with no basis to rely on and the need to study their design methods and key points from scratch. Therefore, the current work of architects is not only limited to spatial design and morphological expression, but also extends to the discussion of the underlying logic of functional setting and spatial organization, including clarifying prerequisites such as individual project operation mode and customer positioning, so as to master sufficient and comprehensive information and translate it into the basic requirements of design, namely the “architectural planning” link [11,12]. These changes are also reflected in the education of architectural colleges and universities, from past technical talent training that relied on “typification” and “standardization” teaching to comprehensive talent training with a clear understanding and judgment of architectural design needs.

At the current stage of architectural design education in colleges and universities, an increasing number of architectural design assignments no longer provide clear briefs but, instead, offer only controlling economic and technical indicators, leaving students to determine how to respond to site-specific issues, plan the building’s organization, and set the planning criteria on their own [13,14,15]. In China’s traditional architectural design teaching, which used to focus on morphological design and functional organization training, students are initially provided with or guided to obtain site information to establish a basic design context. This phase, referred to as the “research report”, tends to prioritize formal information over non-morphological information, and it rarely addresses those social issues that are inseparable from architectural design. Additionally, due to the lack of systematic teaching, training, and evaluation, the process of gathering site information often becomes superficial, not to mention how this information is to be translated into architectural planning [16]. In recent years, architectural design education reforms have focused on training students to gather site information and translate it into architectural planning based on the analysis of social issues. This architectural planning is then used to guide the entire design process. The author’s research team has long been dedicated to the field of “architectural design training based on in-depth site information acquisition and cognition”. In a previous study titled “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’”, a third-year exploratory design project on “Urban Village Renovation Design” at Zhejiang University was used as an example to focus on the information acquisition phase of architectural planning. The study proposed a research framework (Figure 1) that includes the site information required for the planning stage. It clarified that integrating non-morphological elements into the information acquisition phase of third-year undergraduate architectural design courses is a feasible approach to enhancing students’ understanding of site information and social issues and the ability to draw up reasonable architectural plans. The study also explored the varying positive effects of different non-morphological elements on teaching outcomes and the methods of acquiring these non-morphological elements [16].

The previous research has explored the need for morphological and non-morphological information in order to have reasonable architectural planning and subsequent architectural design. Generally, the more time spent on information gathering, the deeper the corresponding understanding [17]. However, since the teaching cycle of an architectural design project includes multiple stages, such as “site information gathering, translation into architectural planning, and architectural design”, time must be allocated in a coordinated manner [16]. As a result, the time available for the information-gathering stage is limited. Zhejiang University’s “Urban Village Reconstruction” exploratory design project has been carried out for nine years since 2016. During this period, the teaching group compared and explored the effects of different information acquisition teaching methods for different classes of students. Sometimes teachers directly provide a survey report on the current situation of the site to shorten the time required for the site cognition stage; sometimes teachers allocate more time for students to practice independently obtaining site information in order to train students’ information acquisition ability; and sometimes teachers provide part of the information report and leave the rest of the information for students to train their information acquisition ability. After comparison, it was found that the teaching effect of the method where only the teacher provides information reports or the method where students obtain information independently are not the best. The combination of the two can enable students to give better feedback in the assignments of information acquisition and architectural design based on information. Based on this, we propose the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1. 

Teachers provide a survey report on the current status of the venue and students independently recognize the venue information. The combination of the two methods can lead to better understanding of the site in the planning stage;

Hypothesis 2. 

If Hypothesis 1 is established, based on the description of the differences between morphological and non-morphological information elements in previous studies, morphological elements are more intuitive, and non-morphological elements need to be extracted from text and language [16]. Morphology or non-morphology may determine whether the information element is obtained by students independently or provided by teachers for better teaching effect.

2. Literature Review

2.1. The Trade-Off Between the Investment Costs and Information Acquisition Benefits in the Site Cognition Stage

At a time when architectural design and education circles generally recognize the inclusion of architectural planning in the full process of architectural teaching training, more tasks are arranged in the teaching time originally used only for design. British universities represented by the AA School, American universities represented by Cornell University, and Chinese universities such as Zhejiang University regard the third year as a transition from basic teaching of architectural design mainly based on form to an advanced practical stage for analyzing and solving social problems. Since then, students have gradually begun to cultivate their ability to translate the social and background information of the site into planning and form design [18,19,20]. As shown in Figure 2, undergraduate architectural design projects in universities around the world will set up a special information acquisition stage and require students to use and present the results of information acquisition in later planning, design, and expression. Many universities will also require students to specifically display interim results at the end of the information acquisition stage [14]. In the team’s previous research [16], the process of China’s architectural design education constantly adapting to social development, as well as teaching tasks and key points of design teaching in different grades, were discussed, along with the importance of morphological and non-morphological elements in the site cognition stage. However, the propositions of concern in the teaching stage, such as the methods of obtaining morphological and non-morphological elements, the time invested in teaching, and the benefits of information acquisition, have not been further explored.

Scholars in the field of education believe that the duration of teaching courses is limited. If the best educational effect is to be achieved within a limited time [21], the difficulty of course design lies in how teachers balance the allocation of teaching content and duration [22]. Based on previous research, this study further explores the most efficient method of obtaining information during site cognition in the architectural planning stage. In the overall teaching cycle, teachers find it difficult to decide how much teaching time should be allocated in the research stage so that students have enough information about the site to support the design. It can be seen that there is a game between the time cost and the information acquisition benefit in the information acquisition link of the site cognition stage; that is, the teaching efficiency problem. Teaching efficiency was first proposed by Coleman in 1966. The maximization of the common interests of the educational output party and the consumer party and the optimization of costs are the direction of the pursuit of educational efficiency [23], which corresponds to allocation efficiency in economics, which refers to the most effective use of social resources to meet human needs [24].

For any teaching proposition, in the absence of time constraints, the longer the duration of the information acquisition phase, the better the students’ understanding, absorption, and translation of the information [25]. However, extending the duration of the information acquisition process inevitably affects the time allocated to architectural planning and subsequent design translation processes, prompting extensive discussions on the time allocated to the information acquisition process. R. Tian discusses the design proposition related to research projects at South China University of Technology. In this proposition, a substantial amount of time is allocated to early information acquisition, allowing students to develop a systematic understanding of site information [26]. However, spending too long on the initial information acquisition process impacts the subsequent information translation and spatial design process. Even with an in-depth understanding of the site, students find it challenging to translate this into design outcomes, resulting in an overly “abstract” scheme that deviates from practical reality. Conversely, Li and Chang point out that in past teaching of urban design topics at China University of Mining and Technology, most students focused on spatial effects, spending little time on site information acquisition, leading to a lack of a thorough understanding of the regional and urban development background, resulting in overall design schemes that struggle to integrate organically with various extant urban systems [27].

In the entire teaching cycle, there exists an optimal time allocation plan for matching the required length of time for the information acquisition, planning, and design process with the allocated time, thereby enabling each process to achieve a balance between good teaching outcomes and optimal time costs [28]. There are also cost-effective schemes in the teaching design of each process, achieving the best teaching outcomes within a limited time by improving teaching efficiency [29]. Concerning the information acquisition process, enhancing educational efficiency involves exploring ways to maximize students’ understanding of site information within a limited time. Currently, each commonly used site cognition method has its advantages and disadvantages: Students’ independent acquisition can deepen their understanding of site information [30], but it is time consuming and students’ information translation abilities are insufficient; site information provided by teachers can significantly reduce the time required for information acquisition [31], but this results in a limited understanding of site information. Existing research remains at the level of evaluating the pros and cons of these two information acquisition methods, without exploring how to combine and improve these methods to enhance teaching efficiency during the information acquisition process. Therefore, how to improve the site cognition method and shorten the teaching time without sacrificing students’ proper level of cognition of the site—that is, to find the best cost-effective balance in the game between time cost investment and venue cognition effect—is a topic that needs further exploration in this study.

Figure 2. The weekly schedule for the teaching process of architectural design courses for undergraduate students in their third year across universities [20,32,33]. Data related to the University of Bath and Cornell University come from the authors’ interviews with students at both institutions. Interview transcripts are detailed in the Supplementary File.

Figure 2. The weekly schedule for the teaching process of architectural design courses for undergraduate students in their third year across universities [20,32,33]. Data related to the University of Bath and Cornell University come from the authors’ interviews with students at both institutions. Interview transcripts are detailed in the Supplementary File.

2.2. Differences in Architectural Design Teaching Efficiency Between Active and Passive Information Acquisition Methods

In practical architectural project design, architects have their own familiar “black box” workflow for acquiring, understanding, and translating site information [29], which is often incommunicable and indescribable. However, in architectural design education, guiding students to pass the threshold of site cognition and information translation, enabling them to acquire information quickly and effectively using different methods, poses a teaching challenge for educators. Teaching methods for the information acquisition process have long been in a state of chaos [34]. During the information acquisition process, most architectural schools in China encourage students to acquire site information independently by combining literature research with fieldwork. Teachers are only required to assign information acquisition tasks without giving guidance on what specific information to obtain and how to obtain it [35]. However, many students lack a systematic understanding of how to acquire information. During the information acquisition process, they have unclear goals and are unsure about which specific methods to use to acquire information from resources and fieldwork, leading to non-targeted information that is then difficult to incorporate into subsequent designs [27]. This demonstrates the low teaching efficiency of the information acquisition process in its current chaotic state, necessitating further intervention from teachers.

Different types of site information have corresponding efficient acquisition methods depending on their related subjects and translation goals [36]. To explore the applicability of various information acquisition methods, this study references the classification of information acquisition behaviors in informatics to clarify the differences between the various information acquisition methods in architecture. Nelson mentions that information acquisition behavior can be categorized into active and passive acquisition behaviors. In the acquisition of architectural design information, active information acquisition refers to students’ independent activities, that is, choosing channels spontaneously for obtaining information, designing steps for obtaining information by themselves, and collecting and analyzing the resultant information [37]. Passive information acquisition implies that individuals do not actively engage in acquiring information but are influenced by external factors, essentially being presented with information. Passive information acquisition requires fewer steps than active information acquisition as students do not need to select information sources, search for information, or evaluate the validity of the information, thereby making the process more direct.

Based on this classification, this study defines previously mentioned literature research and fieldwork as “active information acquisition methods”. Effective active information acquisition in teaching should not be a “cursory tour” in a random way, but a more systematic method applied under the guidance of teachers to allow students to obtain information independently. Students undergoing active acquisition experience the entire process of information acquisition, taking more time and gaining a deeper understanding of the information. However, the educational efficiency of active information acquisition in actual teaching is questioned widely. Although students can search for various site-related information on the internet, they often struggle to filter, organize, and summarize excessive amounts of information, resulting in high time costs and fragmented information, hindering the efficient construction of comprehensive site cognition [38]. Some scholars have expressed reflections on the results-oriented approach of active information acquisition in Chinese architectural design education. For instance, Guo and Tong point out that students’ sense of achievement and satisfaction from active information acquisition is low, teacher participation is lacking, research data are often redundant and disorganized, and there is a disconnect between research and course design [39]. Yu suggests that students’ methods for actively acquiring information are simplistic, making in-depth and detailed acquisition challenging and lacking persuasiveness [40]. Currently, the prevalent information acquisition methods in Chinese architectural design education, whereby students explore independently, consume a great deal of time and are inefficient, with poor research outcomes that struggle to guide further design [41].

Reflecting on the efficiency of purely active information acquisition methods, many scholars propose that students can efficiently acquire information through “passive methods” such as taught lectures and providing overviews. Unlike in the real architectural market, where architects must handle everything themselves, in architectural design education, teachers can support the growth and learning of students during challenging stages [42,43]. Guo and Tong suggest that teachers should guide students to supplement and update existing knowledge during the information acquisition process, complement each other’s findings, and obtain multi-dimensional, refined conclusions, and recommend optimizing outcomes through seminars and lectures [39]. B. Zhang, in Research Methodology of Architecture, Urban Planning, and Landscape Architecture, proposes that review research (synonymous with passive information acquisition in this study) not only captures the depth, breadth, and complexity of existing research, but also summarizes the cognitive conflicts among researchers [44]. However, if students rely solely on teachers for information, the teaching of the information acquisition process becomes a unidirectional, “transmission–reception” procedure. Educational scholars believe that in this teaching model, students’ initiative is hard to cultivate, and individual differences are not respected, making it difficult for students to understand fully the interrelationships between various pieces of information [45].

Combining the research of B. Zhang and Dai, the active and passive information acquisition methods are further subdivided based on the information sources, resulting in Figure 3, which classifies the methods of acquiring architectural design information and the types of information obtained [44,46]. In current Chinese architectural design education, both active and passive acquisition methods are involved. However, reflecting on the existing information acquisition methods by other scholars, solely active or passive acquisition is not the most efficient teaching method [47]. This coincides with our hypothesis based on teaching practice phenomena. In addition, previous studies have not clearly divided the fast or effective acquisition methods corresponding to each information category that needs to be collected; that is, it is unknown which information elements should be actively acquired and which should be passively acquired. Based on the framework of information elements of architectural design projects from the previous research of this team, morphological elements are more intuitive and students can reach a basic understanding in a short time, while non-morphological elements are mostly data content [16] and students need more time to collect and understand. Therefore, this study hopes to explore whether morphological or non-morphological information elements are classified as the standard for dividing active and passive methods of obtaining information by comparing the efficiency of active and passive acquisition of different information and which elements have high efficiency in active acquisition and which elements have high efficiency in passive acquisition. The intent is to further clarify the organization of active and passive acquisition methods of each information element, make the information acquisition process clear, improve the efficiency of the entire information acquisition stage, and shorten the time required so as to provide help for teachers to design lesson plans.

3. Methodology

3.1. Teaching Experiment Setup for Site Information Acquisition in the Architectural Design Information Acquisition Phase

The final design proposition for third-year undergraduate students at Zhejiang University is centered on a 12-week neighborhood renovation project, emphasizing training in information acquisition and its translation into planning and design. In previous research, the author’s research team summarized and clarified the information required for the planning and design of this proposition and proposed an information acquisition framework that includes both morphological and non-morphological elements (Figure 1) [16]. To compare the efficiency of active and passive information acquisition methods, the teaching group selected 43 students from the 2022 and 2023 academic years as experimental groups A and B, respectively. The variables for Group A and Group B are shown in

Table 1. Comparison of variables between the two groups in the teaching experiment.

Factors		Group A	Group B
Descriptive Factors	Number of people	21	22
	Sex ratio	1.1	1
	Enrolment year	2019	2020
	Years of participation in “Exploratory Design”	2022	2023
Controlled Variables	Grades participating in “Exploratory Design”	The third year of undergraduate university studies
	Investigation site	Yile New Village North Plot
	Investigation duration	2 weeks
	Active information acquisition methods	Including autonomous fieldwork and literature research
Stimulus Variables	Passive information acquisition methods	None	By accepting investigation materials provided by teachers

. Group A conducted active information acquisition independently using active methods such as fieldwork, interviews, surveys, and literature research but without any site clues provided by the teachers. In contrast, Group B was not required to conduct systematic fieldwork or other ways of active information acquisition. Instead, the teachers provided them directly with the research report from the 2022 students (see Figure 4), which included a basic understanding of site information and preliminary guidance on translating information into planning and design. The entire duration of training in information acquisition, architectural planning, and design was arranged identically for students in the two experimental groups throughout the teaching cycle, where the information acquisition process was limited to two weeks, focusing on acquisition and understanding of information for the same site.

3.2. Comparative Analysis of the Efficiency of Site Information Acquisition Methods

(1)

Analysis of the Impact of Active and Passive Information Acquisition Methods on Students’ Information Cognition Levels Based on Bloom’s Taxonomy

To explore whether a combined active–passive information acquisition method, as opposed to solely active information acquisition, results in differences in students’ understanding of site information, 12 instructors from the teaching group were interviewed regarding the cognitive levels of both groups of students with respect to each element. Using the teaching effect evaluation table obtained through Bloom’s taxonomy in previous research [16] (

Table 2. The levels of site information cognition corresponding to each stage of Bloom’s Taxonomy [16].

Cognitive Dimension	Achievements
1. Memory	Evoke past experience and memories of non-morphological elements when conducting pre-design research and architectural programming
	Recall precisely what they have learned during the exploratory design programming phase
2. Comprehension	Clarify the meaning of non-morphological elements in the research and programming stage from different perspectives
	Find and explain the influence of non-morphological elements in the programming and design phase of architectural design
	Determine what category certain non-morphological elements belong to
	Summarize the meaning and points of non-morphological elements in the research phase
	Inference and judgment are made according to the basic principles of non-morphological elements
	Compare the similarities and differences in various aspects of non-morphological elements
	Construct a relationship diagram of various aspects of non-morphological elements and architectural programming and design
3. Application	Use knowledge of non-morphological elements in the research stage to complete architectural programming and design tasks
	Select and apply non-morphological elements to accomplish new architectural design
4. Analysis	Distinguish between relevant and irrelevant or important and unimportant parts of non-morphological elements according to the site
	Clarify the hierarchical structure of the non-morphological elements of the site and the interaction between each part
	Discover hidden elements related to non-morphological elements in architectural programming and design
5. Review	Verify the rationality of applying knowledge of non-morphological elements in the architectural programming stage
	Identify deficiencies or contradictions in the programming and provide new programming content in the architectural programming stage
6. Creation	Rationalize the architectural programming stage by proposing appropriate concepts and ideas based on architectural design needs and non-morphological elements
	Develop plans or procedures for the application of non-morphological elements in architectural programming and facilities

), each instructor was asked to assess the mastery level of each element by the two groups of students according to the table. If the differences between the two groups in the instructors’ assessments of their cognitive levels were found to be minor, a questionnaire would be completed by the students to further verify the magnitude of cognitive level differences.

The study further employs Bloom’s taxonomy model to investigate the cognitive levels of the A and B control groups concerning information acquired through different means. Alaoutinen and Smolander set up a questionnaire to include each cognitive level—“Remembering”, “Understanding”, “Applying”, “Analyzing”, “Evaluating”, and “Creating” (Figure 5)—allowing students to judge their mastery level, thus examining their cognitive levels with respect to the knowledge points [48]. This study uses this method, letting students assess their mastery of each element to examine the average cognitive level of each group across the six levels.

Given the clear descriptions provided by Bloom’s cognitive taxonomy scale, students can gauge their cognitive levels accurately based on each level’s description, making the data comparable between different students. If a combined active–passive information acquisition method can replace the solely active information acquisition method, there should be minimal or no difference in the cognitive levels of most elements between the two groups of students. In this study’s questionnaire, the six cognitive levels of Bloom’s taxonomy—“Remembering”, “Understanding”, “Applying”, “Analyzing”, “Evaluating”, and “Creating”—are assigned values from 1 to 6, respectively, to compare the cognitive levels of the two groups of students with respect to each site information element. An independent samples t-test can be used to verify whether there is a statistically significant difference in the cognitive levels of different types of information between the A and B groups. If p > 0.05, this indicates that there is no significant difference.

(2)

Analysis of the Efficiency of Site Information Acquisition Methods Based on the ROI Model

After examining whether replacing solely active information acquisition with a combined active–passive approach affects students’ cognitive levels, this study aims to explore how to combine active with passive information acquisition methods to organize efficient information acquisition in teacher lesson plan design. Specifically, it investigates which site information elements should be actively or passively acquired by students.

This study intends to use the return on investment (ROI) model to quantitatively analyze and compare the efficiency of the two information acquisition methods across different information elements. The ROI method mainly evaluates the core teaching effects from the perspectives of investment and return, and its formula is presented in Equation (1) [49].

$$\mathrm{R}\mathrm{O}\mathrm{I}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{N}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{P}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{f}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{t}\left(\mathrm{o}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{G}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{f}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{m}\mathrm{I}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{v}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{m}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{t}\right)-\mathrm{C}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{f}\mathrm{I}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{v}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{m}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{t}}{\mathrm{C}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{f}\mathrm{I}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{v}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{m}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{t}}}\times 100\%$$

(1)

Common teaching effect evaluation models include the K&K model in terms of the aspects of effect, efficiency, and benefit evaluation; the context, input, process, and product (CIPP) model; and the context, input, reaction, and output (CIRO) model. Compared to other educational evaluation models like Kirkpatrick’s four-level model, the K&K model, which ignores the input stage, and the CIPP and CIRO models, which emphasize the evaluation of the entire process and the contribution of teaching results [50], the ROI model can quantify the benefits of a learning method or project directly by equally emphasizing investment and return without the need to construct a complex indicator system, thereby making it more suitable for this study.

Return on investment was proposed as the fifth-level evaluation in Phillips’s five-level training evaluation model, based on the reaction, learning, behavior, and result of Kirkpatrick’s four-level training evaluation model. It compensates for the four levels’ neglect of cost inputs and benefit evaluations. Since its introduction by Phillips, the ROI methodology has been used independently of the previous four levels in many cases, mainly for evaluating returns on economic activities. In the field of education, ROI is often used to evaluate returns on educational projects. For example, Yi constructed an investment and benefit evaluation model for online learning by using the ROI model [51]. In recent years, studies have also used ROI to evaluate teaching methods, such as Kuo’s qualitative evaluation of the benefits of outdoor learning on early childhood education using the ROI method, although he also mentioned in his article that many parts of the costs and benefits in education are difficult to quantify, such as the time invested by teachers [52].

The questionnaire designed for this study starts with the two classes of data required by ROI, defining the investment and return made by students during the information acquisition process. In research by domestic and international scholars, the definition of learning investment often includes students’ investment in time (or behavior), cognition, and emotion [17,53]. This study adopts time as the calculation of students’ investment in information acquisition because it is easier to quantify. The return on the two information acquisition methods is defined as the amount of effective information that students obtain through each method. To facilitate comparison between the methods and unify the units of time and information volume, this study calibrates the ROI-related questions in the questionnaire to a constant sum comparative scaling. Students do not need to fill in the absolute values of time spent and information obtained; they only need to fill in the proportion of time spent on each method for each information element and the ratio of effective information obtained through the two methods. The sum of the ratio of the two methods in the questions about time spent or information volume obtained is 10. Research has shown that constant sum comparative scaling can force the tested students to compare several options, make careful choices, and not regard all the options as “equally important” [54], thus enabling the investigator to better understand the differences between the options. Due to its suitability for pairing, ranking comparison, and discrete choice, constant sum comparative scaling is widely used in market research, decision-making evaluation, and other fields [55]. It is worth mentioning that in the field of economics, it usually takes several years for the net profit from an investment to exceed the investment cost. The experimental time of this study was only two weeks, but the input and profit in information acquisition are different from financial investment. As shown in Table 1, the overall cycle of architectural design teaching is shorter and the feedback is faster. In addition, this study uses a matching method to compare the benefits of the two information acquisition methods, avoiding the influence of units and positive and negative values. Sample questions in this study’s questionnaire include the following: “What is the proportion of time spent between active and passive acquisition methods for a certain information element in your cognition (such as historical tracing)?”; and “What is the proportion of effective information obtained between active and passive acquisition methods for a certain element in your cognition?”. The α coefficient of this scale is 0.961.

For some information elements in students’ cognition, the efficiency of passive acquisition in terms of information cognition may improve less or not at all compared to active acquisition. That is, when a paired-sample t-test for the ROI of active and passive acquisition methods with respect to an information element results in p < 0.05 or t > 0, the ROI value for passive acquisition of this information element is less than that of active acquisition, or the difference between them is not especially significant. Therefore, in lesson plan design, these elements can be left for students to actively explore as training for their information acquisition abilities. Based on the corresponding survey subjects of each information element, this study will make the following assumptions about which active or passive information method is more suitable for elements when the acquisition time is short: morphological information elements are more intuitive and suitable for students to actively acquire; and non-morphological information elements are mostly data-based content, suitable for students to passively acquire in order to improve the teaching efficiency of the information acquisition stage.

The process for evaluating the educational quality (i.e., students’ cognitive level) of the entire experimental group and comparing the efficiency of the two information acquisition methods is shown in Figure 6. Taking into account the qualitative research results mentioned earlier, which indicate that students have varying overall levels of information cognition, it is posited that this might influence their judgment of the ROI for the two information acquisition methods for various site information elements. It is believed that students who score higher in Bloom’s cognitive evaluation are more effective in evaluating the ROI of information acquisition methods. This study combined the differences in information cognition levels among students based on Bloom’s taxonomy by assigning each student’s total information cognition level score obtained via Bloom’s taxonomy to their ROI evaluation value, which made the results more convincing.

4. Results

4.1. Results of Analysis of Differences in Students’ Information Cognition Levels

Results from interviews with the course instructors indicate that there is little difference in the cognitive levels of the two groups of students regarding various elements, whether they passively received research materials provided by the teachers or not. An independent sample t-test was further conducted on Bloom’s cognitive level data from each element of the two groups of students in the questionnaire; the data were standardized according to the cognitive level scores for different information elements for each student in order to draw a scatter plot of the cognitive level scores for different elements of the two groups of students. In the figure, the distribution of the two groups of data for each question is relatively similar, and the students’ cognitive level in terms of each information element is weakly correlated with the grouping. According to

Table 3. Independent sample t-test results of Bloom’s cognitive scores for Group A and Group B.

	Group A		Group B		t	p-Value
	Average	Standard Deviation	Average	Standard Deviation
Total Score	62.10	14.46	63.27	12.896	−0.282	0.779
Historical Tracing	3.29	1.102	3.32	1.323	−0.087	0.931
Economic Structure	3.33	1.065	3.14	1.424	0.512	0.612
Social Structure	3.29	0.845	3.59	1.297	−0.909	0.368
Service Details	3.43	1.165	3.50	1.472	−0.176	0.861
Setup Facilities	3.95	1.117	4.14	0.941	−0.585	0.562
Behaviors	3.67	1.017	3.73	1.352	−0.166	0.869
Cognition	4.05	1.203	3.91	1.065	0.400	0.691
Location Characteristics	4.00	1.140	4.05	1.214	−0.126	0.900
Traffic Network	3.86	1.236	3.91	1.342	−0.132	0.896
Urban Texture	3.81	1.250	3.59	1.221	0.580	0.565
Interface and Skyline	3.19	1.250	3.23	1.378	−0.092	0.927
Building Economy Index	3.38	1.465	3.05	1.174	0.830	0.411
Transportation System	3.71	1.309	3.95	1.046	−0.667	0.509
Street Texture and Spatial Scale	3.86	1.108	4.00	1.234	−0.399	0.692
Landscape System and Open Space System	3.62	1.117	4.18	1.332	−1.497	0.142
Building Features	3.86	1.276	4.14	1.670	−0.614	0.543
Important Nodes and Landmarks	3.81	1.365	3.86	1.283	−0.134	0.894

, it can be seen that the mean differences between the two groups of students for each factor and overall cognitive level are small, and the differences between the groups are not significant; that is, p > 0.05.

The insignificant correlation of cognitive level in Table 3 and the violin distribution of data in Figure 7 show that for the third year of undergraduate architectural design teaching, using a combination of active and passive information acquisition methods instead of only active research methods has little impact on students’ cognitive level with respect to site information, which is in line with the hypothesis of this study. Moreover, for most site information elements, the average Bloom’s cognitive level for Group B is slightly higher than that of Group A, indicating that using passive information acquisition by providing research reports in combination with active acquisition methods does not decrease students’ cognitive levels regarding most site information elements.

4.2. Results of Analysis of the Efficiency Differences Among Various Active and Passive Information Acquisition Methods

The paired sample t-test on the overall ROI for active and passive information acquisition methods revealed a statistically significant difference (p = 0.045 < 0.05, as shown in

Table 4. Paired sample t-test results with respect to overall ROI for active and passive information acquisition methods.

	Active Information Acquisition		Passive Information Acquisition		t	p-Value
	Average	Standard Deviation	Average	Standard Deviation
The sum of the ratios of time spent	113.7196	21.25713	56.2804	21.25713	8.751	<0.01
The sum of the ratios of quantity of information	110.5163	22.47879	59.4837	22.47879	7.352	<0.01
Total ROI	−0.0262	0.08851	0.0712	0.22135	−2.063	0.045

), indicating that the ROI for passive information acquisition is higher than that of active information acquisition. This suggests that passive information acquisition is generally more efficient than active information acquisition, aligning with the study’s expectations.

Further exploration of the ROI differences between active and passive information acquisition methods for various information elements yields the data shown in

Table 5. Paired sample test results for active acquisition method ROI and passive acquisition method ROI for each site information element.

Categories of Site Information	Average	Standard Deviation	t	p-Value
Historical Tracing	−0.284200137770242	1.148541358835416	−12.848	0.000
Economic Structure	−0.509162162639536	1.547199358904864	−17.087	0.000
Social Structure	−0.127582161697518	1.273911211900481	−5.200	0.000
Service Details	−0.081195245160379	1.203757894689277	−3.502	0.000
Setup Facilities	−0.110737655516811	0.951189126149525	−5.915	0.000
Behaviors	−0.004515339494451	0.794368896337550	−0.292	0.771
Cognition	0.145598448266508	0.867496265100809	8.612	0.000
Location Characteristics	−0.130119243544994	1.563501435281157	−4.270	0.000
Traffic Network	−0.182975843837978	0.862487802500389	−10.886	0.000
Urban Texture	−0.205912308603861	0.926547970432869	−11.211	0.000
Interface and Skyline	−0.397518031918497	1.482825876476093	−13.609	0.000
Building Economy Index	−0.041254005514569	0.581907885485626	−3.584	0.000
Transportation System	−0.084722900427420	0.548348944738259	−7.928	0.000
Street Texture and Spatial Scale	−0.000463372800708	0.485677365302932	−0.048	0.961
Landscape System and Open Space System	−0.234297741124555	0.939375351679788	−12.798	0.000
Building Features	−0.242876613262127	0.775828391608569	−15.864	0.000
Important Nodes and Landmarks	−0.277419817518924	0.790257063744553	−17.807	0.000

. The paired sample t-test for the ROI of each site information element found that for most elements, the ROI of passive information acquisition was greater than that of active information acquisition, with t (active ROI passive ROI) < 0; this difference was statistically significant (p < 0.001 < 0.05). This indicates that using passive information acquisition can enhance information acquisition efficiency for these elements. Specifically, for macro elements and micro morphological elements, t (active ROI–passive ROI) was significantly less than zero, with a larger absolute value, suggesting that passive information acquisition greatly improves information acquisition efficiency for these elements.

However, there were some site information elements (e.g., individual cognition) where the ROI of passive information acquisition was lower than that of active information acquisition, with t (active ROI–passive ROI) > 0; this difference was also statistically significant (p < 0.001 < 0.05). Additionally, for some site information elements (e.g., individual behavior, street texture, and spatial scale), there was no significant difference in ROI between active and passive acquisition methods (p > 0.05). This suggests that for these site information elements, passive acquisition has a limited impact on improving information acquisition efficiency.

5. Discussion

5.1. Combining Active and Passive Methods Can Improve Information Acquisition Efficiency

According to the analysis of the differences in students’ information cognition levels in Section 4.1, although the two groups of students had different ways of obtaining information (Group A only obtained active information, and Group B combined active and passive information acquisition), the two groups of students had no significant differences in the self-assessment results of their cognitive levels with respect to various types of information compared with Bloom’s taxonomy (p > 0.05), and the data distribution of the two groups was similar and the average was close. This proves that the teaching method of combining active and passive information acquisition in the survey stage has basically no effect on students’ level of understanding of various types of site information. Just like the active information acquisition method, it can lay a foundation for students to translate and output information in the later planning and design stages. This result proves that the information acquisition teaching method in which teachers provide survey materials in the early stages of the course is feasible.

According to the statistics of the overall time cost ratio, information benefit ratio, and ROI difference calculated from the data in Table 5, for all information categories involved in this study, the ROI of the passive information acquisition method is significantly greater than that of the active information acquisition method (t = −2.063, p = 0.045 < 0.05). Based on previous information cognition level changes, the efficiency analysis of active and passive information acquisition methods using ROI further confirms that a combined approach can enhance efficiency. It also clarifies the varying degrees of positive impact each method has on cognitive efficiency with respect to different site information elements. This aligns with several educational studies, where scholars argue that while active learning is highly regarded in fostering student autonomy, the incorporation of guided passive learning, such as through lectures, reduces the difficulty of knowledge acquisition and thus improves efficiency [30,31]. Therefore, in pursuit of higher efficiency in the architectural design information acquisition process, combining active and passive information acquisition methods allows students to acquire more site information quickly, deepen their understanding of the site, and have ample information for translation in the planning and design process, thereby continuously conveying a positive impact.

5.2. Suitable Active or Passive Acquisition Methods for Different Types of Information

According to the paired sample test of the ROI of active and passive information acquisition methods for each information type in Table 5, the data are divided into three situations.

Situation 1: t (active-passive) < 0 and p < 0.05, which means that the ROI of passive information acquisition methods for these types of information is significantly greater than that of active information acquisition methods; that is, passive acquisition is more efficient. Most information types belong to this situation, but the absolute value of t is quite different. Among them, passive acquisition of information categories with |t| > 10 can greatly reduce the time cost of information acquisition, including macro non-morphological information elements such as historical tracing and economic structure; macro morphological elements such as traffic network, urban texture, and interface and skyline; and micro morphological elements such as building economy index and transportation system.

Situation 2: t (passive-active) > 0 and p < 0.05, which means that the ROI of active information acquisition methods for these types of information is significantly greater than that of passive information acquisition methods; that is, active acquisition is more efficient. The information categories belonging to this situation include the micro non-morphological element of cognition.

Situation 3: p > 0.05, which means that there is no significant difference in ROI between passive and active information acquisition methods for these types of information. The information categories that belong to this situation include the micro-level non-morphological element of behaviors and the meso-level morphological element of street texture and spatial scale.

Referring to the above data obtained from the experiment, this study believes that Situation 1 can be obtained by passive information acquisition to improve information acquisition efficiency, and Situations 2 and 3 are suitable for students to actively acquire information because of the small difference in active and passive acquisition efficiency. It is concluded that each information element should adopt active and passive information acquisition methods, and the hypothesis proposed above is correct. Considering the length of the questionnaire setting, the study did not distinguish between specific methods for active and passive information acquisition. In order to obtain a clearer match between methods and information types, the study referred to previous discussions on information acquisition methods and further concluded how to obtain various site information more efficiently and with better teaching results (Figure 8).

The research findings indicate that for macro non-morphological elements such as economic structure, social structure, and other humanistic environment characteristics of the area, the efficiency of passive information acquisition surpasses that of active acquisition. The reason is that the macro elements mentioned above are the aggregation of large-scale data on individual work conditions, economic situations, and ideologies, typically requiring a significant amount of inquiry-based active acquisition in autonomous information acquisition. The inquiry method necessitates designing effective questions tailored to the theme and the active cooperation of the respondents, leading to considerable uncertainty in the whole process. According to the ROI data from this study, the cost of active acquisition for these macro non-morphological elements is relatively high. Therefore, it is more appropriate to adopt passive information acquisition methods to acquire historical tracing, economic structure, and social structure within non-morphological elements, whereby teachers provide students with the research reports of previous years to assist in their site cognition. Scholars like Dai concur, suggesting that due to human subjectivity, such site information varies significantly among individuals, requiring students to collect a substantial amount of data to derive reliable and effective conclusions, which is time-consuming [46]. Linden also highlights the risk of the focus shifting in the design procedure of questionnaires and interviews due to their reliance on individual descriptions [36]. In the subsequent planning and design process, macro non-formal elements serve as crucial references for functional organization and require a high degree of accuracy. Providing research reports by teachers can enable students to quickly acquire statistically significant and general information, preventing the omission of potentially in-depth information due to issues with question setting or inquiry during the information acquisition process.

For mesoscale non-morphological information related to public services, such as social security and public safety, the efficiency of passive acquisition is significantly higher than that of active acquisition. This type of information typically requires students to actively acquire knowledge through resources and literature. However, since much of the information is not publicly available and is highly time-sensitive, it is challenging for students to find reliable sources. Moreover, the content and usage of such information among different students are quite similar. In the subsequent planning and design process, this type of information is used primarily to assist students in functional organization, where they check for missing functions based on the site’s mesoscale non-morphological information. Students do not engage in extensive information translation and do not require an in-depth understanding of this type of information. Hence, teachers who provide research reports directly can break down information barriers, simplify the acquisition procedure for students, and enhance the efficiency of teaching the information acquisition process significantly without negatively impacting training in translating information into architectural planning.

The ROI quantitative analysis reveals that for micro-scale non-morphological information regarding users’ behaviors and needs, obtained through active acquisition methods such as observation in autonomous information acquisition, passive information acquisition methods do not enhance acquisition efficiency significantly. Compared to other elements, the cost of fieldwork is relatively low. Active and thorough observation and inquiry are fundamental methods of conducting fieldwork. Observing the daily activities or other behaviors of residents or users can lead to a better understanding of their values and needs [56]. Therefore, for micro-scale non-morphological elements related to user behavior and needs, on-site active information acquisition by students is more effective and efficient. Other scholars also share similar views. For instance, Watson believes that without intensive, close observation, researchers cannot truly understand “what’s really going on” or “how things work” within an organization [57], which is the core of ethnographic research [36]. This shows whether the observation method is effective in fieldwork and its corresponding micro non-morphological elements such as behavior are crucial for subsequent functional, circulation, and space conceptions in the planning and design process. Individual user behavior and other micro-scale non-morphological information are highly subjective, leading to varied interpretations and differentiated design solutions among students. Therefore, the necessity for teachers to provide this type of information is minimal, making it a suitable part of the active information acquisition training for students.

Moreover, the study results indicate that passive information acquisition improves cognitive efficiency significantly for macro-scale morphological elements such as location characteristics, traffic networks, and urban texture, and for micro-scale morphological elements such as building features, nodes, and landmarks. Such information is challenging to perceive intuitively, leans toward objective facts, and tends to be relatively stable without substantial changes, reducing the need for repetitive annual acquisition. Students often use active acquisition methods such as conducting literature searches to obtain similar, homogeneous information in autonomous information acquisition. During planning and design, the translation of this type of information primarily involves spatial layout organization and controlling styles such as color and materials, ensuring the design proposal integrates appropriately with its surroundings. Students only need to understand the morphological characteristics of this information to apply it in their designs and require no deeper understanding. Passive acquisition meets cognitive needs quickly while ensuring information accuracy and saving students’ time from mechanical information searches.

In contrast, for mesoscale morphological elements like street texture and spatial scale, the ROI model calculations reveal that passive acquisition does not enhance cognitive efficiency significantly. These elements are closer to a scale perceivable by humans, and students often use active methods like on-site observation to acquire them during autonomous information acquisition. Since Merleau-Ponty introduced the concept of the phenomenology of perception, architectural masters like Steven Holl and Zumthor have been attempting to evoke a sense of presence in architecture, and firsthand phenomenological research can inspire imaginative design concepts [56,58,59]. Immersive observation allows students to experience the site more directly, using their senses to acquire unique information. Therefore, it is more appropriate for students to actively acquire mesoscale morphological elements to enhance their perception and translation skills. Other studies also support this view—Bognar suggests that a phenomenological approach to design should envision the environment as a potential network of places inviting and sustaining bodily, emotional, and spiritual interactions [60]. To achieve this, architecture students should comprehend the functioning of the experiential relationship between humans and the environment. Understanding the phenomenological significance of places involves a knowledge of memory, anticipation, imagination, and other functions acquired through various personal and collective experiences. Schon asserts that by sharing and comparing their experiences with others’ descriptions, students can verify and improve the accuracy of their observations [61]. This type of information is crucial in subsequent planning and design stages, serving as a key reference for circulation planning, space organization, and scale control, and emphasizes personal experience. Observing and experiencing this information on-site can stimulate students’ inspiration for spatial design. Therefore, training in active methods like observation for acquiring mesoscale morphological elements on-site is necessary, and such information, having individual differences, cannot just be replaced by research reports provided by teachers and should be obtained through on-site research as part of the active information acquisition training.

5.3. Recommendations for Teachers’ Lesson Plan Design

This study takes the teaching of urban village renovation design as an example. According to previous research, the information elements required for the whole process and the corresponding information acquisition methods are listed. As mentioned above, the current diversification of problems in the field of architectural design also leads to the need for different information in the whole design process of different projects. By adjusting the information types and the corresponding acquisition method framework, the passive information acquisition method has a certain degree of generalizability in architectural teaching. For example, in renovation and reconstruction design projects similar to this experiment, the main purpose is to solve the conflict between the current needs of people and the original architectural space, thus students will need to pay more attention to information factors such as social structure, public service, or cognition; while in historical protection projects, historical tracing, old construction practices, and other information elements related to project value are obviously more valued. When preparing information for students to passively acquire, teachers need to examine the specific types of information required for different projects and the degree to which they are needed. In addition, in the social architectural design production practice separated from school education, there is indeed no guide like a teacher to provide designers with passively acquired information. The generalizability of passive information acquisition in production practice needs further exploration. However, considering that architectural design teaching is a simplified simulation of real production in a relatively short period of time, teachers can reduce the difficulty of students’ training at this stage by allowing them to acquire information passively, so that students can take into account the training of various abilities. The combination of active and passive information acquisition methods advocated in this study is desirable.

Admittedly, this study demonstrated that some site information can be acquired passively to improve research efficiency, but it did not discuss how teachers can provide information without affecting students’ cognition. How teachers present research reports to students and guide them in translating site information are topics that warrant further exploration. When teachers assist students in passively acquiring information, they should pay attention to the boundaries of information and provide different levels of help according to the necessity and difficulty of the information acquisition training. For some site information, teachers can offer the necessary direction, types of information, and channels for obtaining information to assist students in information acquisition and translation. For other site information, teachers can provide specific content and data directly. For example, for macro morphological elements such as location characteristics and traffic network, teachers can teach students how to use Python 3.11 to quickly scrape points of interest or road network data, guiding them to identify problems within the site through data analysis, thus constructing a comprehensive understanding of the site. For non-morphological mesoscale elements like social security and public safety, teachers can provide foundational information alongside public service facility data and point maps from past surveys, allowing students interested in exploring in more depth to conduct further investigations. Teachers should avoid the “spoon-feeding” approach of handing all information directly to students [62]. Instead, they should provide varying levels of support based on the necessity and difficulty of training in information acquisition. According to the methods suggested by Guo, Tong, and B. Zhang, the teaching approach for passive information acquisition can include not only providing review materials curated by teachers, but also organizing seminars and lectures with experts and educators [39,44].

Even for information actively acquired by students, teachers should not refrain from all forms of intervention, but should provide more guidance to cultivate students’ ability to acquire information independently and efficiently, laying a foundation for future learning stages. There are numerous methods for active information acquisition, such as literature searching, observation, and inquiry, with varying levels of efficiency depending on the elements involved. Based on their experience, teachers can guide students in selecting the appropriate methods and demonstrate some procedures. For those micro non-morphological and meso morphological elements that require inquiry and observation, teachers can provide references such as past questionnaires or interview records to help students organize their inquiries. Additionally, sharing experiences from previous students can highlight high-value information within the site for targeted investigation. It can also be combined with cutting-edge information technology to cultivate students’ ability to learn interdisciplinary knowledge. For example, students can be encouraged to build an information interaction platform to collect information such as the social structure and economic structure of users in the site, and obtain information such as behaviors and cognition of venue users through electroencephalographic instruments combined with VR and other technologies.

6. Conclusions

Against a backdrop of rising demand for living environments and more diverse requirements for architectural design, problem-solving-oriented architectural planning and design have emerged, replacing the traditional fixed brief approach. Architectural design that incorporates architectural planning requires students to have an in-depth understanding of site characteristics, user needs, and other site information. Therefore, the information acquisition phase has become one of the key focus areas of the teaching cycle. Combining informatics, sociology, and other disciplines, this study divides the methods of students obtaining information in architectural design teaching into active information acquisition and passive information acquisition. Based on the conclusion from previous research that formal and non-morphological elements are equally important in architectural design research, this paper focuses on the third-year undergraduate “Urban Village Renovation Design” course at Zhejiang University. The research team set up a teaching experiment with two control groups: one in which students only performed active information acquisition and another in which active and passive information acquisition were combined. Analysis of students’ Bloom’s taxonomy cognitive levels found that using a combination of active and passive information acquisition methods, judged by the depth of students’ understanding of the information, does not diminish students’ cognitive levels for most site information compared to using only active information acquisition methods. The study found that there are differences in the active and passive acquisition efficiency of different types of information. For macro and meso non-morphological information elements and macro and micro morphological elements, passive methods can be used to improve the acquisition efficiency, while micro non-morphological elements and meso morphological elements can be reserved for active information acquisition training. This study explores the role of passive information acquisition methods, which have been previously overlooked, in architectural design education. It provides theoretical support for the design of teaching plans and helps teachers refine the lesson plans for the architectural design research phase. It also provides scientific teaching guidance for the information acquisition phase, which helps architectural design teaching to develop sustainably in the inventory era.

Additionally, this study and a previous study are part of a whole series of studies. After discussing the importance of both morphological and non-morphological elements in architectural design, this study proposes to obtain the above information through a combination of active and passive methods. However, this study only discusses methods for relatively improving site cognition efficiency by adjusting the proportion of active and passive information acquisition methods and does not explore other methods for enhancing the efficiency of the information acquisition phase in teaching; for example, optimizing time allocation across different stages of the overall architectural design teaching cycle to achieve the best educational outcomes. This study only considers the limited duration of information acquisition as a quantitative factor and does not discuss the time and scope that should be allocated to passive information acquisition or the information acquisition phase. Specific details on how many class hours should be allocated to the information acquisition phase in teaching design and the duration for active and passive information acquisition need further exploration based on the acquisition schemes proposed in this study. Additionally, setting intermediate requirements for information acquisition in architectural design projects, such as requiring students to summarize their research findings, can prompt students to accelerate the efficiency of information acquisition and site cognition. This study does not explore the motivational mechanisms for teaching efficiency, and the impact of different incentive and feedback mechanisms on students’ information acquisition efficiency also needs further investigation. In addition, this paper discusses the information acquisition stage. How teachers should guide students to transform the acquired information into planning and design in later stages of the course is a subsequent research goal of this team. In order to improve the overall teaching framework, the team will continue to follow up on a series of studies to explore these issues and propose more specific and targeted teaching methods for current undergraduate architectural design.