On-line critiques in collaborative design studio

  • Aysu Sagun
  • Halime Demirkan


In this study, the Design Collaboration Model (DCM) was developed to provide a medium for the on-line collaboration of the design courses. The model was based on the situated and reflective practice characteristics of the design process. The segmentation method was used to analyse the design process observed both in the design diaries and the redline files that were composed of the problem domain and the design strategies. In the problem domain, it was observed that high emphasis was given to the design abstractions in the level of details of a space or sub-space. Also, the critics were more interested in the solution space than the problem space. As a design strategy, rejecting a solution was more practiced than proposing alternative solutions. Since the performance score of the students was highly correlated to the number of segments in critiques, it is concluded that quality rather than quantity of critiques determine the success level of proposed design solutions.


Collaborative design Critiques Design process Design strategy 



We would specially like to thank Dr. Yaprak Sagdic and Dr. Burcu Senyapili who agreed to share time and participate in collaboration sessions with patience and gave worthy design critiques. We are grateful to for supporting the project with technical advice and expertise.


  1. Cheng, N. T., & Kvan, T. (2000). Design collaboration strategies. In The 5th International conference on design and decision support systems in architecture and urban planning (pp. 62–73). Nijkerk, The Netherlands: Ampt van Nijkerk August 22–25. Google Scholar
  2. Cheng, N. Y. (2004). Multiple media in design education’. Retrieved from∼design/nywc/pdf/ecaade-emedia-cheng.pdf (February, 2004).Google Scholar
  3. Chiu, M. L. (1998). The design guidance of CSCW: Learning from collaborative design studios. In T. Sasada, S. Yamaguchhi, M. Morozumi, A Kaga & R. Homma (Eds.), CAADRIA’1998: Proceeding of the third conference on computer aided architectural design research in Asia (pp. 261–270). April 22–24, Japan: Osaka University.Google Scholar
  4. Cicognani, A. (2001). Architectural design for online environments. In B. Kolko (Ed.), Virtual commons: Policy and community in an electronic age. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Clancey, W. J. (1997). Situated cognition: On human knowledge and computer representations. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Craig, D., & Zimring, C. (2000). Supporting collaborative design groups as design communities. Design Studies, 20(2), 187–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Demirbas, O. O., & Demirkan, H. (2003). Focus on architectural design process through learning styles. Design Studies, 24(5), 437–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Demirkan, H. (2005). Generating design activities through sketches in multi-agent systems. Automation in Construction, 14, 699–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dong, A. (2006). Concept formation as knowledge accumulation: A computational linguistics study. Artificial intelligence for engineering design. Analysis and Manufacturing, 20, 35–53.Google Scholar
  10. Fischer, G., & Ostwald, J. (2002). Seeding, evolutionary growth, and reseeding: Enriching participatory design with informed participation. In T. Binder, J. Gregory & I. Wagner (Eds.), Proceedings of the participatory design conference (PDC’02) (pp. 135–143). Sweden: Malmö University.Google Scholar
  11. Gero, J. S., & Mc Neill, T. (1998). An approach to the analysis of design protocols. Design Studies, 19(2), 21–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gero, J. S. (1999). A model of designing that includes its situatedness. In J. Gu & Z. Wei (Eds.), Proceedings of CAADRIA 1999 (pp. 253–364). Shanghai, China: Shanghai Scientific and Technological Literature Publishing House.Google Scholar
  13. Kvan, T., Yip, A., & Vera, A. H. (1999). Supporting design studio learning: An investigation into design communication in computer-supported collaboration. Retrieved from (February, 2004).Google Scholar
  14. Maher, M. L., & Tang, H. (2003). Co-evolution as a computational and cognitive model of design. Research in Engineering Design, 14(1), 47–63.Google Scholar
  15. Riva, G., & Galimberti, C. (2002). Complementary explorative multilevel data analysis CEMDA: A socio-cognitive map of data analysis for Internet research. In G. Riva & C. Galimberti (Eds.), Towards cyberpsychology: Mind cognition and society in the internet age (pp. 19–35). Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  16. Sagun, A. (2003). Evolutionary collaborative design studios. Ph D thesis Bilkent University, Ankara. Available at:
  17. Sagun, A., & Demirkan, H. (2003). Evolutionary collaborative design studios. In E-activities in design and design education—proceedings of 9th europia international conference: E-activities and intelligent support in design and the built environment, October 2003 (pp. 49–59). Turkey: Istanbul Technical University.Google Scholar
  18. Sagun, A., & Demirkan, H. (2005). Usability evaluation of a collaborative web-based design environment In Proceedings of 3rd international conference of innovation in architecture, engineering and construction-AEC2005, June 2005, Netherlands: Rotterdam.Google Scholar
  19. Sagun, A., Demirkan, H., & Goktepe, M. (2001). A framework for the design studio in web based education. Journal of Art and Design Education, 20(3), 332–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
  21. Senyapili, B., & Basa I. (2006). The shifting tides of academe: Oscillation between hand and computer in architectural education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 16, 273–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sudweeks, F., & Simoff, S. J. (1998). Complementary explorative data analysis: The reconciliation of quantitative and qualitative principle. In S. Jones (Ed.), Doing internet research (pp. 29–55). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  23. Swigger, K., Alpaslan, F., Brazile, R., & Monticino, M. (2003). Effects of culture on computer-supported international collaborations. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 60, 365–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Uluoglu, B. (2000). Design knowledge communicated in studio critiques. Design Studies, 21(1), 33–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Vera, A. H., Kvan, T., West, R. L., & Lai, S. (1998). Expertise, collaboration and bandwidth. CHI` 98. Retrieved from∼tkvan/chi-98.html (January, 2002).Google Scholar
  26. Zimring, C., Khan, S., Craig, D., Haq, S., & Guzdial, M. (2001). CoOL studio: using simple tools to expand the discursive space of the design studio. Automation in Construction, 10(6), 675–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil and Building EngineeringLoughborough UniversityLoughborough, LeicestershireUK
  2. 2.Department of Interior Architecture and Environmental DesignBilkent UniversityAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations