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

References

• Alfasoft GmbH Germany: NVivo [software]. n.d. Accessed 26 June 2020. https://www.nvivo.de/.
   Google Scholar
• a + t research group. 2017. 50 Urban Blocks [card game]. ISBN:978-84-617-9436-2.
   Google Scholar
• Barclay, S. M., M. N. Jeffres, and R. Bhakta. 2011. “Educational Card Games to Teach Pharmacotherapeutics in an Advanced Pharmacy Practice Experience.” American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 75 (2): 33.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Basoglu, E. B., and O. Akdemir. 2010. “A Comparison of Undergraduate Students’ English Vocabulary Learning: Using Mobile Phones and Flash Cards.” Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET 9 (3): 1–7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bryer, J., and K. Speerschneider. 2016. “Likert: Analysis and Visualization Likert Items.” R package version 1.3.5. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=likert.
   Google Scholar
• Camargo, A., J. Artus, and H. Spiers. 2018. “Neuroscience for Cities.” Future Cities Catapult 1 (1): 121. Accessed 16 July 2020. futurecities.catapult.org.uk.
   Google Scholar
• Christensen, R. H. B. 2019. “Ordinal – Regression Models for Ordinal Data.” R package version 2019.12-10. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ordinal.
   Google Scholar
• Chrysikou, E. 2018. “Why We Need new Architectural and Design Paradigms to Meet the Needs of Vulnerable People.” Palgrave Communications 4 (1): 1–6. doi:https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-018-0171-z.
   Google Scholar
• Connolly, T. M., E. A. Boyle, E. MacArthur, T. Hainey, and J. M. Boyle. 2012. “A Systematic Literature Review of Empirical Evidence on Computer Games and Serious Games.” Computers & Education 59 (2): 661–686. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coutrot, A., R. Silva, E. Manley, W. de Cothi, S. Sami, V. D. Bohbot, … H. J. Spiers. 2018. “Global Determinants of Navigation Ability.” Current Biology 28: 2861–2866.e4. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2018.06.009.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cross, N. 2006. Designerly Ways of Knowing. New York: Springer. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/1-84628-301-9.
   Google Scholar
• Dalton, R. C., and C. Hölscher. 2016. Take one Building: Interdisciplinary Research Perspectives of the Seattle Central Library. London: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. doi:https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315589237.
   Google Scholar
• 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
• Dalton, R. C., C. Hölscher, and H. J. Spiers. 2015. “Navigating Complex Buildings: Cognition, Neuroscience and Architectural Design.” In Studying Visual and Spatial Reasoning for Design Creativity, edited by J. Gero, 3–22. Dordrecht: Springer. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9297-4_1.
   Google Scholar
• Dalton, R. C., J. Krukar, and C. Hölscher. 2018. “Architectural Cognition and Behavior.” In Handbook of Behavioral and Cognitive Geography, edited by D. R. Montello, 337–356. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. doi:https://doi.org/10.4337/9781784717544.00030.
   Google Scholar
• Dalton, R. C., S. F. Kuliga, and C. Hölscher. 2013. “POE 2.0: Exploring the Potential of Social Media for Capturing Unsolicited Post-Occupancy Evaluations.” Intelligent Buildings International 5 (3): 162–180. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/17508975.2013.800813.
   Google Scholar
• Daly, S. R., S. Yilmaz, J. L. Christian, C. M. Seifert, and R. Gonzalez. 2012. “Design Heuristics in Engineering Concept Generation.” Journal of Engineering Education 101 (4): 601–629.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Electronic Arts / Maxis: Simcity [computer game]. 1989. Accessed 26 June 2020. https://www.ea.com/de-de/games/simcity/simcity.
   Google Scholar
• Eno, B., and P. Schmidt. 1975. Oblique Strategies [card game]. Limited edition, boxed set of cards. Opal. Accessed 26 June 2020. https://www.enoshop.co.uk/product/oblique-strategies.html.
   Google Scholar
• Farmer, S. C., and M. K. Schuman. 2016. “A Simple Card Game to Teach Synthesis in Organic Chemistry Courses.” Journal of Chemical Education 93 (4): 695–698. doi:https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00646.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gaber, J. 2007. “Simulating Planning: SimCity as a Pedagogical Tool.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 27 (2): 113–121. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X07305791.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerace, A., A. Day, S. Casey, and P. Mohr. 2013. “An Exploratory Investigation of the Process of Perspective Taking in Interpersonal Situations.” Journal of Relationships Research 4 (e6): 1–12. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/jrr.2013.6.
   Google Scholar
• Goel, V., and P. Pirolli. 1992. “The Structure of Design Problem Spaces.” Cognitive Science 16 (3): 395–429. doi:https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1603_3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grant, M., E. Marco, P. Pilkington, and S. Burgess. 2012. “The Public Health Residency: A Novel Way to Focus Attention on Sustainability and Wellbeing in the Architectural Studio.” Journal for Education in the Built Environment 7 (2): 84–109. doi:https://doi.org/10.11120/jebe.2012.07020084.
   Google Scholar
• Gray, C. M., C. M. Seifert, S. Yilmaz, S. R. Daly, and R. Gonzalez. 2016. “What is the Content of “Design Thinking”? Design Heuristics as Conceptual Repertoire.” International Journal of Engineering Education 32 (3): 1349–1355.
   Google Scholar
• Groat, L. N., and D. Wang. 2013. Architectural Research Methods. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Gutierrez, A. F. 2014. “Development and Effectiveness of an Educational Card Game as Supplementary Material in Understanding Selected Topics in Biology.” CBE—Life Sciences Education 13 (1): 76–82. doi:https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.13-05-0093.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hanington, B. 2003. “Methods in the Making: A Perspective on the State of Human Research in Design.” Design Issues 19 (4): 9–18. doi:https://doi.org/10.1162/074793603322545019.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hölscher, C., M. Brösamle, and R. C. Dalton. 2010. “On the Role of Spatial Analysis in Design Synthesis: The Case of Wayfinding.” Proceedings of NSF International Workshop on Studying Visual and Spatial Reasoning for Design Creativity, Aix-en-Provence, France, June 14–15.
   Google Scholar
• Hölscher, C., T. Meilinger, G. Vrachliotis, M. Brösamle, and M. Knauff. 2006. “Up the Down Staircase: Wayfinding Strategies in Multilevel Buildings.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 26 (4): 284–299. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.09.002.
   Google Scholar
• Hollander, J. B., J. D. Ericson, and D. Wadley. 2021. “Guest Editorial for Special Issue, ASR.” Architectural Science Review 64 (4): 317–318. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2021.1956082.
   Google Scholar
• Hölscher, C., and R. C. Dalton. 2008. “Comprehension of Layout Complexity: Effects of Architectural Expertise and Mode of Presentation.” In Design Computing and Cognition Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Design Computing and Cognition, edited by J. Gero and A. K. Goel, 159–178. New York: Springer. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8728-8_9.
   Google Scholar
• Huizinga, J. 1955. Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play-Element in Culture, 1–27. Boston: Beacon Press. ISBN:9781621389996.
   Google Scholar
• IDEO: IDEO Method Cards [card game]. 2003. Accessed 26 June 2020. https://www.ideo.com/post/method-cards.
   Google Scholar
• Iftikhar, H., P. Shah, and Y. Luximon. 2020. “Human Wayfinding Behaviour and Metrics in Complex Environments: A Systematic Literature Review.” Architectural Science Review 64 (5): 452–463. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2020.1777386.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jeffery, K. 2019. “Urban Architecture: A Cognitive Neuroscience Perspective.” The Design Journal 22 (6): 853–872. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2019.1662666.
   Google Scholar
• Jones, J. C. 1980. Design Methods: Seeds of Human Future. London: John Wiley & Sons. ISBN: 9780471447900.
   Google Scholar
• Kalay, Y. E. 2004. Architecture’s New Media: Principles, Theories, and Methods of Computer-Aided Design. Cambridge: MIT Press. ISBN-10:0262112841.
   Google Scholar
• Knudtson, C. A. 2015. “ChemKarta: A Card Game for Teaching Functional Groups in Undergraduate Organic Chemistry.” Journal of Chemical Education 92 (9): 1514–1517. doi:https://doi.org/10.1021/ed500729v.
   Google Scholar
• Krukar, J., and R. C. Dalton. 2014. “Towards A Unified Model Of Building Usability.” 22nd International Association People-Environment Studies (IAPS) Conference 44 (1): 1–5.
   Google Scholar
• Krukar, J., R. C. Dalton, and C. Hölscher. 2016. “Human-environment Interaction: Taking hci to Architectural Design.” In Architecture and Interaction: Human Computer Interaction in Space and Place, edited by N. S. Dalton, H. Schnädelbach, M. Wiberg, and T. Varoudis, 17–35. New York: Springer. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30028-3.
   Google Scholar
• Kuliga, S. F. 2016. “Evaluating User Experience and Wayfinding Behaviour in Complex, Architectural Environments – Towards a User-Centred Approach of Building Usability.” Doctoral thesis, University of Freiburg, Germany. doi:https://doi.org/10.6094/UNIFR/11386.
   Google Scholar
• Kuliga, S. F., R. Dalton, M. Tomko, and C. Hölscher. 2014. Tools, Stages and Perspective Taking During the Architectural Design Process: Preliminary Results from a University-Building Case-Study in Australia. In Proceedings of Design Cognition and Behavior: Usability in the Built Environment: Report Series of the Transregional Collaborative Research Center SFB/TR 8 Spatial Cognition of the University of Bremen, edited by B. Emo, K. Al Sayed, and T. Varoudis, University of Freiburg, 18–22.
   Google Scholar
• Kuliga, S. F., B. Nelligan, R. C. Dalton, S. Marchette, A. L. Shelton, L. Carlson, and C. Hölscher. 2019. “Exploring Individual Differences and Building Complexity in Wayfinding: The Case of the Seattle Central Library.” Environment and Behavior 51 (5): 622–665. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916502238863.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawson, B. 2006. How Designers Think: The Design Process Demystified. London: Routledge. ISBN-10:1138405361.
   Google Scholar
• Liddell, T. M., and J. K. Kruschke. 2018. “Analyzing Ordinal Data with Metric Models: What Could Possibly Go Wrong?” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 79 (November 2017): 328–348. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2018.08.009.
   Google Scholar
• Lithfous, S., A. Dufour, and O. Després. 2013. “Spatial Navigation in Normal Aging and the Prodromal Stage of Alzheimer’s Disease: Insights from Imaging and Behavioral Studies.” Ageing Research Reviews 12 (1): 201–213. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arr.2012.04.007.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lockton, D., D. Singh, S. Sabnis, M. Chou, S. Foley, and A. Pantoja. 2019. “New Metaphors: A Workshop Method for Generating Ideas and Reframing Problems in Design and Beyond.” In Proceedings of the 2019 on Creativity and Cognition, 319–332.
   Google Scholar
• Lüdecke, D. 2020. “sjPlot: Data Visualization for Statistics in Social Science.” R package version 2.8.4, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=sjPlot.
   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
• Mayer, I. S., L. Carton, M. de Jong, M. Leijten, and E. Dammers. 2004. “Gaming the Future of an Urban Network.” Futures 36 (3): 311–333. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-3287(03)00159-9.
   Google Scholar
• McNeel Miami: SudoHopper3D [software plugin / game]. 2017. Accessed 26 June 2020. https://www.mcneelmiami.com/sudohopper3d.
   Google Scholar
• Minnery, J., and G. Searle. 2014. “Toying with the City? Using the Computer Game SimCity™ 4 in Planning Education.” Planning Practice and Research 29 (1): 41–55. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2013.829335.
   Google Scholar
• Möller, O. 2012. Method Kit. Accessed 26 June 2020. https://methodkit.com/.
   Google Scholar
• Montello, D. R. 2014. “Spatial Cognition and Architectural Space: Research Perspectives.” Architectural Design 84 (5): 74–79. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/ad.1811.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moseley, A., and N. Whitton. 2014. New Traditional Games for Learning: A Case Book. London: Routledge. doi:https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203597514.
   Google Scholar
• Norman, D. 2013. The Design of Everyday Things. Cambridge: MIT Press. ISBN:9780262640374.
   Google Scholar
• Odenweller, C. M., C. T. Hsu, and S. E. DiCarlo. 1998. “Educational Card Games for Understanding Gastrointestinal Physiology.” Advances in Physiology Education 275 (6): S78–84. doi:https://doi.org/10.1152/advances.1998.275.6.
   Google Scholar
• Oliveira, S., E. Griffin, D. Cash, and E. Marco. 2020. “Health and Wellbeing in Design Studio Briefs – Architecture and Engineering Graduating Students’ Motivations and Approaches.” Building Services Engineering Research and Technology 41 (2): 137–152. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0143624419897394.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Omastadi platform [game]. 2018. “Omastadi: A Game for Making Suggestions on Participatory Budgeting.” Accessed 23 July 2020. https://omastadi.hel.fi/.
   Google Scholar
• O’Neil, H. F., R. Wainess, and E. L. Baker. 2005. “Classification of Learning Outcomes: Evidence from the Computer Games Literature.” The Curriculum Journal 16 (4): 455–474. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/09585170500384529.
   Google Scholar
• Ove Arup & Partners International Ltd: Drivers of change [card game]. 2009. ISBN-10:379134224X. Accessed 16 July 2020. http://www.driversofchange.com/.
   Google Scholar
• Piaget, J. 1967. A Child’’s Conception of Space. New York: W. W. Norton and Company. ISBN-10:0393004082.
   Google Scholar
• R Core Team. 2020. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. https://www.R-project.org/.
   Google Scholar
• Rossa, R., and S. Rossa. 2018. SOS Gefühlschaos [card game]. Accessed 16 July 2020. https://beckassets.blob.core.windows.net/product/readingsample/23184890/23184890_leseprobe2.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Rowe, P. G. 1982. “A Priori Knowledge and Heuristic Reasoningin Architectural Design.” Journal of Architectural Education 36 (1): 18–23. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/10464883.1982.11102632.
   Google Scholar
• Rowe, P. G. 1998. Design Thinking. Cambridge: MIT press. ISBN-10:9780262181228.
   Google Scholar
• Roy, R., and J. P. Warren. 2019. “Card-based Design Tools: A Review and Analysis of 155 Card Decks for Designers and Designing.” Design Studies 63: 125–154. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2019.04.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Röser, F., K. Hamburger, A. Krumnack, and M. Knauff. 2012. “The Structural Salience of Landmarks: Results from an On-Line Study and a Virtual Environment Experiment.” Journal of Spatial Science 57 (1): 37–41.
   Google Scholar
• Samuel, F. 2018. Why Architects Matter: Evidencing and Communicating the Value of Architects. London: Routledge. doi:https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315768373.
   Google Scholar
• Schön, D. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books. ISBN: 9780465068784.
   Google Scholar
• Schön, D. 1985. The Design Studio: An Exploration of Its Traditions and Potential. London: Royal Institute of British Architects. ISBN: 9780947877453.
   Google Scholar
• Schön, D. 1987. Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Toward a New Design for Teaching and Learning in the Professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. ISBN: 978-1-555-42220-2.
   Google Scholar
• Sward, K. A., S. Richardson, J. Kendrick, and C. Maloney. 2008. “Use of a Web-Based Game to Teach Pediatric Content to Medical Students.” Ambulatory Pediatrics 8 (6): 354–359. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ambp.2008.07.007.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tan, E. 2020. “Play the City: Dungeons and Dragons for Cities.” In Architectonics of Game Spaces, edited by A. Gerber and U. Götz, 265–276. Bielefeld: transcript Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Tenbrink, T., C. Hölscher, D. Tsigaridi, and R. C. Dalton. 2014. “Cognition and Communication in Architectural Design.” In Space in Mind: Concepts for Spatial Learning and Education, edited by D. R. Montello and K. E. Grossner, 263–280. Cambridge: MIT Press. doi:https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9811.001.0001.
   Google Scholar
• Terzano, K., and V. Morckel. 2017. “SimCity in the Community Planning Classroom: Effects on Student Knowledge, Interests, and Perceptions of the Discipline of Planning.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 37 (1): 95–105. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X16628959.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van der Linden, V., H. Dong, and A. Heylighen. 2016. Capturing Architects’ Designerly Ways of Knowing About Users: Exploring an Ethnographic Research Approach. In Future Focused Thinking – DRS International Conference 2016, edited by P. Lloyd and E. Bohemia, June 27–30. Brighton. doi:https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2016.419.
   Google Scholar
• Van der Linden, V., H. Dong, and A. Heylighen. 2019. “Tracing Architects’ Fragile Knowing About Users in the Socio-Material Environment of Design Practice.” Design Studies 63: 65–91. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2019.02.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yaneva, A. 2009. Made by the Office for Metropolitan Architecture: An Ethnography of Design. Rotterdam: 010 Uitgeverij. ISBN-13:978-9064507144.
   Google Scholar
• Yilmaz, S., S. R. Daly, J. L. Christian, C. M. Seifert, and R. Gonzalez. 2014. “Can Experienced Designers Learn from new Tools? A Case Study of Idea Generation in a Professional Engineering Team.” International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation 2 (2): 82–96. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/21650349.2013.832016.
   Google Scholar