A ‘Knowledge Trading Game’ for collaborative design learning in an architectural design studio

Article
First Online:

Abstract

Knowledge-sharing and resource exchange are the key to the success of collaborative design learning. In an architectural design studio, design knowledge entails learning efforts that need to accumulate and recombine dispersed and complementary pieces of knowledge. In this research, firstly, ‘Knowledge Trading Game’ is proposed to be a way for promoting students’ design knowledge exchange, dissemination and refinement. Twelve students are randomly chosen as experimental participants. And secondly, ‘virtual value’ is used for students to trade their design knowledge. In this game, students buy others’ design knowledge to extend their design problem space; students decrease their design solution space through their sold design knowledge. Finally, ‘protocol analysis’ is adapted as the research methodology to examine the results of implementation. A positive outcome is identified that Knowledge Trading Game encourages collaborative design learning.

Keywords

Knowledge-sharing Collaborative design learning Design knowledge market Knowledge Trading Game Protocol analysis 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to appreciate the efforts put forth by anonymous reviewers and Dr. Tzyy-Liang Hsieh for his helpful suggestions.

References

  1. Achten, H. H. (2002). Requirements for collaborative design in architecture. In Timmermans, H. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 6th Design & Decision Support Systems in Architecture & Urban Planning Conference (pp. 1–13). Avegoor, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  2. Arrow, K. J. (1962). Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In Nelson, R. R. (Ed.), Universities-National Bureau of Economic Research Conference. The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, Princeton University Press: Princeton.Google Scholar
  3. Artman, H., Ramberg, R., Sundholm, H., & Cerratto-Pargman, T. (2005). Action context and target context representations: A case study on collaborative design learning. In T. Koschman, D. Suthers, & T. W. Chan (Eds.), Computer supported collaborative learning 2005: The next 10 years! Mahwah. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  4. Béguin, P. (2003). Design as a mutual learning process between users and designers. Interacting with Computers, 15(5), 709–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carrara, G., Fioravanti, A. & Novembri, G. (2001). Knowledge-based system to support architectural design—Intelligent objects, project net-constraints, collaborative work. Proceedings of the 19th eCAADe Conference (pp. 80-85). Architectural Information Management, Helsinki.Google Scholar
  6. Craig, D. L., & Zimring, C. (2000). Supporting collaborative design groups as design communities. Design Studies, 21(2), 187–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cross, N., & Cross, A. C. (1995). Observations of teamwork and social processes in design. Design Studies, 16, 143–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Daly, H. E. (2007). Ecological economics and sustainable development: Selected essays of Herman Daly. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  9. Davenport, T., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know. Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  10. Dignum, V., & Dignum, F. (2003). Knowledge market: Agent-mediated knowledge sharing. CEEMAS, 16, 8–179.Google Scholar
  11. Eschenfelder, K., Heckman, R., & Sawyer, S. (1998). The distribution of computing: The knowledge markets of distributed technical support specialists. Information Technology & People, 11(2), 84–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gero, J. S., & Tang, H.-H. (1999). Concurrent and retrospective protocols and computer aided architectural design. In G. Jingwen & W. Zhaoji (Eds.), CAADRIA’99 (pp. 403–410). Shanghai, China: Shanghai Scientific and Technological Literature Publishing House.Google Scholar
  13. Goldschmidt, G. (1991). The dialectics of sketching. Creativity Research Journal, 4(2), 123–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gottschalk, P. (2005). Strategic knowledge management technology. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.Google Scholar
  15. Habraken, N. J., & Gross, M. D. (1988). Concept design games. Design Studies, 9(3), 150–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ma, Ada. W. W. (2008). Computer supported collaborative learning and social creativity: A case study of fashion design. Journal of Information, Information Technology, and Organizations, 3, 17–39.Google Scholar
  17. Maher, M.L., Gül, L.F. & Bilda, Z. (2006). Studying design behaviour in collaborative virtual environments. In Proceedings of 16th World Congress on Ergonomics (IEA2006 Congress). Maastricht, The Netherlands: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  18. McAffee, R. P., & McMillan, J. (1987). Auctions and bidding. Journal of Economic Literature, 25(2), 699–738.Google Scholar
  19. McCormick, R. (2004). Collaboration: The challenge of ICT. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 14, 159–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pugatch, M. P. (2006). The intellectual property debate: Perspectives from law, economics political economy. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  21. Rodgers, P. A., Caldwell, N. H. M., Clarkson, P. J., & Huxor, A. P. (2001). The management of concept design knowledge in modern product development organizations. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 14(1), 108–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Romer, P. (1990). Endogenous technical change. Journal of Political Economy, 94(5), 71–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., Raunio, A.-M., Raami, A., Muukkonen, H., & Hakkarainen, K. (2001). Computer support for collaborative designing. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 11(2), 181–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Shannon, S. J., Roberts, I. W., & Woodbury, R. F. (2001). vGallery scaffolding reflection in action for students & teachers. (ASCILITE 2001: Conference on reflection in action: Students, teachers and evaluation. Melbourne: The University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
  25. Stempfle, J., & Badke-Schaub, P. (2002). Thinking in design teams–an analysis of team communication. Design Studies, 23, 473–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Suwa, M., & Tversky, B. (1997). What do architects and students perceive in their design sketches? A protocol analysis. Design Studies, 18(4), 385–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tang, H.-H., & Gero, J. (2000). Content-oriented coding scheme for protocol analysis and computer-aided architectural design. In B.-K. Tang, M. Tan, & Y.-C. Wong (Eds.), CAADRIA2000. Singapore: CASA.Google Scholar
  28. Wang, C. C. (2004). The influence of ethical and self-interest concerns on knowledge sharing intentions among managers: An empirical study. International Journal of Management, 21(3), 370–381.Google Scholar
  29. Wasko, M. M., & Faraj, S. (2000). It is what one does: Why people participate and help others in electronic communities of practice. Strategic Information Systems, 9, 155–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wojtowicz, J. (Ed.). (1995). Virtual design studio. Hong-Kong: Hong-Kong University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wan-Ling Wang
    • 1
  • Shen-Guan Shih
    • 1
  • Sheng-Fen Chien
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of ArchitectureNational Taiwan University of Science and TechnologyTaipeiTaiwan, ROC
  2. 2.Department of ArchitectureNational Cheng Kung UniversityTainanTaiwan, ROC

Personalised recommendations