Architectural cognition cards: a card-based method for introducing spatial cognition research and user-centred thinking into the design process

Figures & data

Figure 1. Diagram of the relationship between perspective-taking, design cognition and architectural cognition. Design practitioners design buildings (and other settings) while striving to anticipate and respond to the needs of end-users. The disciplines of architectural cognition, together with design cognition, can support this process by providing a knowledge-scaffold around the typical practice of perspective-taking. Diagram adapted from Conroy Dalton et al. (2013).

Figure 2. The two decks of cards: the Architecture Design Strategies Cards (left) aim to provoke perspective-taking and empathy, while the Spatial Cognition Thinking Cards (right) aim to promote a shared understanding of cognitive science concepts and evidence-based design, offering a shared vocabulary between researchers and designers.

Figure 3. Images of using the two card decks in the design studio and in workshops. (A) the Architecture Design Strategies cards being used in the postgraduate architectural studio. (B) Spatial Cognition Thinking cards laid-out on the table at the end of the workshop with practitioners, organized in terms of (perceived) project relevance. (C) Group of multidisciplinary students, using the Spatial Cognition Thinking cards to discuss which aspects of spatial cognition can help understand people's behaviour in a major pedestrian street. (D) Spatial Cognition Thinking cards organized in column by practitioners and used to structure a discussion on user behaviour in complex buildings. Image credits: Dalton, Hölscher, and Montello 2019 (A); Saskia Kuliga 2019 (B,C,D).

Figure 4. Distinguishing characteristics of the two card decks, including the number of cards per deck, objective, and mode of use.

Table 1. The structure of the two card-decks.

Architecture design strategies	Spatial cognition thinking
72 cards	111 cards
A set of prompts and creative ‘provocations’	A review of key theories, concepts and methods from cognitive science
Aims:	Aims:
1. Prompting experience of being situated in envisioned space	1. Create a common vocabulary
2. User perspective-taking	2. Develop an initial understanding of key theories and concepts
3. Creative provocations	3. Dialogue between science and design
Organized into four groups:	Organized into seven groups:
1. Ideation	1. Wayfinding Behaviour
2. Analysis	2. Spatial Learning
3. Synthesis	3. Perception
4. Evaluation	4. Space & Environment
	5. Research Methods
	6. Spatial Abilities
	7. Mental Representations of Space
Average 18 cards per group	Average 16 cards per group
Coloured according to group	Coloured according to group
Key games:	Key games:
Pebble Throw	Prompt and Pick
Random Draw	Categorise
Additional games:	Additional games:
Prompt and Pick	Pebble Throw
Categorise	Random Draw

Table 2. Testing of the Architecture Design Strategies (ADS) and Spatial Cognition Thinking (SCT) cards.

		Participants	Card-deck
#	Event	N (Female)	ADS	SCT	Evaluation method	Date
Facilitated
1	2 years of postgraduate architectural design studio (1 semester × 2 years)	14 (2)	X		Observation & Focus Group Discussion	Spring Semester 2018 and 2019
2	Workshop with architectural practitioners	7 (2)		X	Observation & Questionnaire	Jun 2019
3	Workshop with multidisciplinary students	30 (12)		X	Observation & Questionnaire	Jun 2019
Non-facilitated
4	Graduate summer-school with architectural design students	19 (13)	X	X	Observation & Questionnaire	Aug 2019
Total		70 (29)

Figure 5. Example workshop materials for to use the two cards decks during user-centred perspective-taking exercises. Right: A picture from the Orchard MRT (metro) station in Singapore (Credit: Panagiotis Mavros 2019), was used for egocentric perspective-taking. Left: A plan-view of a major shopping mall in Singapore, used as an example of complex public building which should accommodate the needs of diverse user groups, serves as a prompt for allocentric perspective-taking (Credit: Panagiotis Mavros 2019).

Figure 6. Word cloud visualising the word frequency analysis from the focus group discussions, where the Architecture Design Strategies Cards were used (n.b. common words omitted). The most frequent words, e.g. think, question, and differently, support our objective to encourage the critical reflexion (questioning and re-thinking) of the students' own designs.

Table 3. Examples of comments assigned to different thematic codes.

Thematic code	References coded	Coverage	Example comments
Inspiration	10	3.31%	‘It makes you think of something that you probably were not aware of thinking of on that moment’.
			‘ … that was one particular example, which changed the way I designed’.
Knowledge	17	4.35%	‘You have to react and think, actually, “Have I even thought about that?”’
			‘So, I think that's probably what, if anything, will make you think more, because you just have to think on the spot’.
Liking	4	0.79%	‘The one card I liked, I thought really helped my project was … ’
			‘I think I'd recommend it to a young, sort of, an architect student starting off … ’
Perspective-taking	9	2.90%	‘I think in the past, I feel I've designed the sorts of projects that is stuff that I like, and I've tried to create interesting spaces, but … this one, it was completely different … I just had to think about how they would use this space, where I wouldn't know how to … ’
			‘Essentially, I just created a false person and I called them ‘Sam’. And I kind of used him to tell the story and the journey through my project’.
Spatial quality	5	0.59%	‘I think [it] helped, sort of, create the key atmospheres that my building wanted to achieve’.
			‘ … what's it going to be like in the flesh … ’
Design process	17	4.58%	‘It made me improve what I'd already made, rather than just change everything’.
			‘That would really help resolve a couple of issues that I was having with the scheme at the time’.
Utility	19	5.21%	‘The one card I liked, I thought really helped my project was … ’
			‘I think they're a really decent, good idea, especially, for undergraduates … ’
Wayfinding and navigation	1	0.67%	‘I saw one that made me think of one that I actually got when I picked one of them. So, it says, ‘Where will people get lost?’ And then that, kind of, makes me think of, ‘Where would you place any signage?’ Just because I remember some of our schemes are just really big or they're just that little bit too much’

Figure 7. Likert-plot showing participant feedback to each workshop (note this does not include the design-studio). Reading from left to right, percentages show the percent of responses that were negative (i.e. aggregating responses 3 or lower), neutral (4), or positive (i.e. aggregating responses 5 and above). A difference in the responses can be observed for all questions between the two facilitated workshops (A, B) and the non-facilitated one (C).

Table 4. Descriptive statistics of responses to the workshop evaluations.

	Likert rating
Question	Workshop	Mode	Group	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Did you understand how they were meant to be used in a workshop / design studio?	A	Facilitated	Practitioners	4.71	1.50		1 (14%)		1 (14%)	4 (57%)		1 (14%)
	B	Facilitated	Students	4.89	0.78				3 (33%)	4 (44%)	2 (22%)
	C	Non-facil.	Students	3.12	1.64	1 (12%)	2 (25%)	3 (38%)		1 (12%)	1 (12%)
How informative did you find the content of the cards?	A	Facilitated	Practitioners	5.71	0.76					3 (43%)	3 (43%)	1 (14%)
	B	Facilitated	Students	5.56	1.13			1 (11%)		2 (22%)	5 (56%)	1 (11%)
	C	Non-facil.	Students	3.62	1.92	1 (12%)		5 (62%)			1 (12%)	1 (12%)
The text was well- written / useful	A	Facilitated	Practitioners	5.86	0.69					2 (29%)	4 (57%)	1 (14%)
	B	Facilitated	Students	4.56	1.01			2 (22%)	1 (11%)	5 (56%)	1 (11%)
	C	Non-facil.	Students	3.88	1.55		2 (25%)		5 (62%)			1 (12%)
Did the cards provide you with a better understanding of spatial cognition?	A	Facilitated	Practitioners	5.29	0.76					6 (86%)		1 (14%)
	B	Facilitated	Students	5.89	0.78					3 (33%)	4 (44%)	2 (22%)
	C	Non-facil.	Students	2.88	1.96	2 (25%)	2 (25%)	2 (25%)	1 (12%)			1 (12%)

Note: (A) facilitated workshop with practitioners, (B) facilitated workshop with multidisciplinary students, and (C) non-facilitated workshop with architecture students.

Counts per rating level (1 = Not at all; 7 = Very much).

Dalton, R. C., C. Hölscher, P. Holgate, and M. Brösamle. 2013. “Subverting the Architectural Design Competition.” In Theory by Design: Architectural Research Made Explicit in the Design Teaching Studio, edited by E. De Vos, J. De Walsche, M. Michels, and S. Verbruggen, 425–430. Antwerp: UPA University Press.

 Google Scholar

Dalton, R. C., C. Hölscher, and D. R. Montello. 2019. “Wayfinding as a Social Activity.” Frontiers in Psychology 10, 1–14. doi:https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00142.

 Google Scholar

Mavros, P. 2019. “Measuring the Emotional Experience of Pedestrian Navigation: The Development of a Research Approach for Mobile Psychophysiological Experiments.” Doctoral thesis, University College London, London. Accessed 26 June 2020. https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10071602/.

 Google Scholar