Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A multimodal study of augmented reality in the architectural design studio

  • Published:
International Journal of Technology and Design Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Architectural design representations comprise physical (models, drawings) and digital media (3D models). Multimodal combinations of physical and digital representations are commonplace in professional contexts such as design reviews or building sites, and ‘making sense’ of these assemblies requires complex socio-cognitive processes and professional expertise. In that context, this paper follows a ‘sense-making’ approach, and theorises the impact of multimodal representations in architectural design tutorials. Hybrid physical/digital representations have been built using Augmented Reality (AR) and utilised in dialogues between students’ groups and design tutors. Design tutorials have been documented through video, workshops, observational notes and interviews to generate a grounded theory through iterative and reflexive coding. Following a multimodal approach, the paper frames AR as an enabler and mediator of design communication, evidenced through multimodal choreographies of physical/digital media, speech and the individual and collective performances of participants’ bodies and actions in space. The resulting theory is composed of 7 concepts outlining the impact of AR in multimodal architectural communication, including the major constructs ‘AR-mediated Interaction’ and ‘Augmented Pedagogies’. The paper outlines this conceptual taxonomy and provides fieldwork evidence supporting a methodological shift from technology-focused to sense-making observations of technology in design activity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Akin, Ö., & Lin, C. (1995). Design protocol data and novel design decisions. Design Studies, 16(2), 211–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-694X(94)00010-B.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aksamija, A., & Iordanova, I. (2010). Computational environments with multimodal representations of architectural design knowledge. International Journal of Architectural Computing, 8(4), 439–460. https://doi.org/10.1260/1478-0771.8.4.439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alp, N. C., Yazici, Y. E., & Oner, D. (2023). Augmented reality experience in an architectural design studio. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 82, 45639–45657. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-023-15476-w.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andia, A. (2002). Reconstructing the effects of computers on practice and education during the past three decades. Journal of Architectural Education, 56(2), 7–13. https://doi.org/10.1162/10464880260472512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, J. M., & Heritage, J. (Eds.). (1985). Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge University Press.

  • Burke, R., & Veliz-Reyes, A. (2021). Socio-spatial relationships in design of residential care homes for people living with dementia diagnoses: A grounded theory approach. Architectural Science Review, Special Issue: Architectural Design Science for Dementia. https://doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2021.1941749.

  • Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. SAGE.

  • Chi, H. L., Kang, S. C., & Wang, X. (2013). Research trends and opportunities of augmented reality applications in architecture, engineering, and construction. Automation in Construction, 33(August 2013), 116–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2012.12.017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross, N. (2001). Design cognition: Results from protocol and other empirical studies of design activity. In C. Eastman, M. McCracken, & W. Newsletter (Eds.), Design Knowing and Learning: Cognition in Design Education (1 ed., pp. 79–103). Elsevier Science. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008043868-9/50005-X.

  • Cuff, D. (1991). Architecture: The story of practice. MIT Press.

  • Delgado, J. M. D., Oyedele, L., Demian, P., & Beach, T. (2020). A research agenda for augmented and virtual reality in architecture, engineering and construction. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 45(August 2020), 101122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2020.101122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dorta, T., Kinayoglu, G., & Hoffmann, M. (2016). Hyve-3D and the 3D cursor: Architectural co-design with freedom in virtual reality. International Journal of Architectural Computing, 14(2), 87–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478077116638921.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dutton, T. A. (1987). Design and studio pedagogy. Journal of Architectural Education, 41(1), 16–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/10464883.1987.10758461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline & Punish: The birth of the prison. Allen Lane. Trans.)A. Sheridan.

  • Gero, J., & McNeill, T. (1998). An approach to the analysis of design protocols. Design Studies, 19(1 (January 1998)), 21–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(97)00015-X.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. AldineTransaction.

  • Goulding, C. (1999). Grounded theory: some reflections on paradigm, procedures and misconceptions (Working Paper WP006/99, Issue.

  • Gül, L. F. (2018). Studying gesture-based interaction on a mobile augmented reality application for co-design activity. Journal on Multimodal User Interfaces, 12, 109–124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12193-017-0252-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hewitt, M. (2014). Representational forms and modes of conception; an approach to the history of architectural drawing. Journal of Architectural Education, 39(2), 2–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/10464883.1985.10758387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. MIT Press.

  • Hutchins, E., & Klausen, T. (1996). Distributed cognition in an airline cockpit. In Y. Engeström, & D. Middleton (Eds.), Cognition and communication at work (pp. 15–34). Cambridge University Press.

  • Jewitt, C. (2012). An Introduction to Using Video for Research (NCRM Working Paper, Issue.

  • Jewitt, C. (2013). Multimodal methods for researching digital technologies. In S. Price, C. Jewitt, & B. Brown (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Digital Technology Research (pp. 250–265). SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446282229.

  • Jewitt, C. (2014). The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis. Routledge.

  • Jewitt, C., & Henriksen, B. (2016). Social Semiotic Multimodality. In N. M. Klug, & H. Stöckl (Eds.), Handbuch Sprache Im Multimodalen Kontext (Handbook of Language in Multimodal contexts) (pp. 145–164). De Gruyter.

  • Jewitt, C., Chubinidze, D., Price, S., Yiannoutsou, N., & Barker, N. (2021). Making sense of digitally remediated touch in virtual reality experiences. Discourse Context & Media, 41(June 2021), 100483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2021.100483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klaasen, I. (2002). Modelling reality. In T. M. D. In Jong, & D. J. M. V. D. Voordt (Eds.), Ways to study and research. Urban, architectural and technical design (pp. 181–188). DUP Science.

  • Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. Routledge.

  • Kress, G., & Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. Bloomsbury Academic.

  • Luck, R. (2014). Seeing architecture in action: Designing, evoking, and depicting space and form in embodied interaction. International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation, 2(3), 165–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/21650349.2013.875488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, S., & Smith, G. (1995). Design and natural science research on information technology. Decision Support Systems, 15(4), 251–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-9236(94)00041-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mewburn, I. (2009). Constructing bodies: Gesture, speech and representation at work in architectural design studios. The University of Melbourne].

  • Mewburn, I. (2012). Lost in translation: Reconsidering reflective practice and design studio pedagogy. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 11(4), 363–379. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474022210393912.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milgram, P., & Kishino, F. (1994). A taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays. IEICE Transactions on Information and Systems, E77-D(12), 1321–1329.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moslehian, A. S., Kocaturk, T., Andrews, F., & Tucker, R. (2022). The nature of innovation in hospital building design: A mixed grounded theory study. Construction Innovation, In Press. https://doi.org/10.1108/CI-12-2021-0236.

  • Murphy, K., Ivarsson, J., & Lymer, G. (2012). Embodied reasoning in architectural critique. Design Studies, 33(6), 530–556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2012.06.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noghabaei, M., Heydarian, A., Balali, V., & Han, K. (2020). Trend analysis on adoption of virtual and augmented reality in the architecture, engineering, and construction industry. Data, 5, 26. https://doi.org/10.3390/data5010026.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oh, Y., Ishizaki, S., Gross, M. D., & Do, E. Y. L. (2013). A theoretical framework of design critiquing in architecture studios. Design Studies, 34(3), 302–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2012.08.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, M. (2005). The problem with affordance. E-Learning and Digital Media, 2(4), 402–413. https://doi.org/10.2304/elea.2005.2.4.402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Picard, R., Papert, S., Bender, W., Blumberg, B., Breazeal, C., Cavallo, D., Machover, T., Resnick, M., Roy, D., & Strohecker, C. (2004). Affective learning - a manifesto. BT Technology Journal, 22, 253–269. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:BTTJ.0000047603.37042.33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Picon, A. (2022). Digital technology and architecture: Towards a symmetrical approach. Technology | Architecture + Design, 6(1), 10–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/24751448.2022.2040297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price, S., Jewitt, C., & Yiannoutsou, N. (2021). Conceptualising touch in VR. Virtual Reality, 25, 863–877. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-020-00494-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Purcell, A. T., & Gero, J. (1998). Drawings and the design process: A review of protocol studies in design and other disciplines and related research in cognitive psychology. Design Studies, 19(4), 389–430. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(98)00015-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qureshi, H. (2019). Collaborative architectural design studio environment: An experiment in the studio of Architectural Design-I. International Journal of Architectural Research, 14(2), 303–324. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARCH-12-2018-0049.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salomon, G., Perkins, D., & Globerson, T. (1991). Partners in cognition: Extending human intelligence with intelligent technologies. Educational Researcher, 20(3), 2–9. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X020003002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action (1 ed.). Basic Books.

  • Schön, D. A. (1985). The design studio: An exploration of its traditions and potentials (1 ed.). RIBA.

  • Sheldon, A., Dobbs, T., Fabbri, A., Gardner, N., Haeusler, M. H., Ramos, C., & Zavoleas, Y. (2019). 15–18 April, 2019). Putting the AR in (AR)chitecture: Integrating voice recognition and gesture control for Augmented Reality interaction to enhance design practice 24th Annual Conference of the Association for Computer-Aided Architectural Design Research in Asia (CAADRIA 2019): Intelligent and Informed, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. http://papers.cumincad.org/data/works/att/caadria2019_081.pdf.

  • Sidani, A., Dinis, F. M., Duarte, J., Sanhudo, L., Calvetti, D., Baptista, J. S., Martins, J. P., & Soeiro, A. (2021). Recent tools and techniques of BIM-Based augmented reality: A systematic review. Journal of Building Engineering, 42(October 2021), 102500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smithwick, D., & Sass, L. (2014). Embodied design cognition: Action-based formalizations in architectural design. International Journal of Architectural Computing, 12(4), 399–417. https://doi.org/10.1260/1478-0771.12.4.399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stals, A., Jancart, S., & Elsen, C. (2021). Parametric modeling tools in small architectural offices: Towards an adapted design process model. Design Studies, 72(January 2021), 100978. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2020.100978.

  • Suwa, M., Purcell, T., & Gero, J. (1999). Macroscopic analysis of design processes based on a scheme for coding designer’s actions. Design Studies, 19(4), 455–483. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(98)00016-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tahsiri, M. (2020). Dialogue in the studio: Supporting comprehension in studio-based architectural design tutorials. Art Design and Communication in Higher Education, 19(2), 149–165. https://doi.org/10.1386/adch_00020_1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taneri, B., & Dogan, F. (2021). How to learn to be creative in design: Architecture students’ perceptions of design, design process, design learning, and their transformations throughout their education. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 39(March 2021), 100781. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100781.

  • Thompson, J. (2019). Narratives of architectural education: From student to architect. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351121873.

  • Thornberg, R., & Charmaz, K. (2014). Grounded theory and theoretical coding. In U. Flick (Ed.), The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis (pp. 153–169). SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446282243.

  • Tsoukas, H. (2017). Don’t simplify, complexify: From disjunctive to conjunctive theorizing in organization and management studies. Journal of Management Studies, 54(2), 132–153. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Urquhart, C. (2007). The evolving nature of grounded theory method: The case of the information systems discipline. In A. Bryant, & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of grounded theory (pp. 339–359). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848607941.n16.

  • Urquhart, C., & Fernández, W. (2013). Using grounded theory method in information systems: The researcher as blank slate and other myths. Journal of Information Technology, 28, 224–236. https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2012.34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veliz Reyes, A. (2016). Augmented pedagogies [PhD Thesis, University of Liverpool].

  • Veliz Reyes, A., Kocaturk, T., Medjdoub, B., & Balbo, R. (2012). Dialogues between physical and digital modelling methods in architectural design Proceedings of the 30th eCAADe Conference: Digital Physicality | Physical Digitality, Czech Technical University in Prague, Czech Republic. http://papers.cumincad.org/data/works/att/ecaade2012_138.content.pdf.

  • Verstegen, L., Houkes, W., & Reymen, I. (2019). Configuring collective digital-technology usage in dynamic and complex design practices. Research Policy, 48(6), 103696. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.10.020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webster, H. (2008). Architectural education after Schön: Cracks, blurs, boundaries and beyond. Journal for Education in the Built Environment, 3(2), 63–74. https://doi.org/10.11120/jebe.2008.03020063.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zamani, B., & Babaei, E. (2021). A critical review of grounded theory research in urban planning and design. Planning Practice & Research, 36(1), 77–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2020.1830240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author has no conflict of interest to report for this paper. The study was funded by a Graduate Teaching Assistantship from the University of Salford. Support for fieldwork activities was provided by the Polytechnic of Turin, Italy.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Art, Design and Architecture, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, United Kingdom

    Alejandro Veliz Reyes

Authors
  1. Alejandro Veliz Reyes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alejandro Veliz Reyes.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Veliz Reyes, A. A multimodal study of augmented reality in the architectural design studio. Int J Technol Des Educ (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-024-09895-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-024-09895-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation