Computational Precedent-Based Instruction (CPBI): Integrating Precedents and BIM-Based Parametric Modeling in Architectural Design Studio

Abstract

Architectural design education aims to balance creativity and analytical thinking. However, design studios have traditionally emphasized intuitive approaches over systematic processes. This study developed and evaluated a pedagogical model termed Computational Precedent-Based Instruction (CPBI), which integrates precedent-based instruction with BIM-based parametric modeling in the architectural design studio. The research explored CPBI’s impact on students’ design skills, identified perceived benefits and challenges, and assessed its effectiveness in promoting systematic design thinking. The study employed a mixed-methods approach, combining model-based inquiry and quasi-experimental research. It involved 19 third-year undergraduate architecture students in a 14-week design studio course. Data collection utilized pre–post surveys, external experts review of student work, and observational data. The pedagogical intervention focused on developing architectural forms, defining aesthetics, and refining building programs using the works of the New York Five architects as precedents. The results showed statistically significant improvements in students’ self-reported design competencies, particularly in precedent analysis, principle application, and design articulation. A shift towards more structured design reasoning was evident. The CPBI model provides a systematic framework for extracting and applying design knowledge from precedents, bridging the gap between conceptual design thinking and digital tools. It contributes to repositioning BIM as an integral design environment in the early design stages, offering implications for both architectural education and professional practice.

1. Introduction

Architectural design is a complex synthesis of analytical and creative processes that requires a structured way of thinking to address multidimensional constraints while creating aesthetic and functional solutions [1]. Formal language plays a crucial role in this process, as it systematically arranges design elements to address various design challenges [2]. At its core, a formal language consists of a structured set of patterns or rulesets that tackle design complexity and develop structured design solutions [3].

Despite the inherent need for structured thinking, architectural design education has been criticized for overemphasizing intuitive form-making rather than systematic processes [4,5]. This pedagogical imbalance highlights the growing need for integrating structured approaches in design education [6]. Recent approaches in architectural education—such as the integration of digital fabrication [7], collaborative interdisciplinary studios [8], and performance-based design approaches [9]—emphasize the importance of merging creative exploration with systematic, technology-driven methods. However, a critical gap persists in the development of methodologies that systematically link conceptual design thinking with computational implementation, particularly in early-stage design education. In this context, students often struggle to translate abstract formal principles into coherent computational frameworks [10,11,12]. Research suggests that integrating precedent-based and computational approaches offers a promising strategy for bridging conceptual design with computation, thus fostering a balance between creativity and rationality in design studios [13,14].

Precedent-based instruction (PBI) involves studying past examples to extract design principles and constraints [15]. However, current informal PBI practices prioritize physical characteristics rather than systematically exploring conceptual foundations [15,16]. This highlights the need for more robust frameworks that view precedents typologically to extract organizational patterns [6,17,18]. In parallel, computational design using parametric modeling enables a rigorous exploration of design alternatives [9,19]. However, effectively translating abstract formal concepts into parametric solutions remains significantly challenging [10,11,12]. Preliminary studies have explored integrating precedent analysis with parametric modeling [10,20,21], but the focus has been on mapping a limited number of patterns. Addressing design complexity, however, requires investigating the relationships between patterns to systematically derive a formal language [3,6,21].

This research aims to overcome the difficulties of integrating precedents with parametric modeling to explicitly represent a formal language in the design studio. It seeks to explore the impact of integrating precedent-based instruction (PBI) with parametric modeling on architectural design education. To enable this integration, the research developed and tested a transformative pedagogical approach termed Computational Precedent-Based Instruction (CPBI). CPBI integrates precedent analysis with BIM-based parametric modeling to systematically extract and apply knowledge from precedents in new design contexts. For this research, Building Information Modeling (BIM) tools are considered well-suited given their ability to encode geometric and functional information [22] and underlying modeling logic [23]. This research builds upon previous work that explored the use of BIM to express architectural formal language [24]. It aims to extend those foundational efforts by developing, implementing, and empirically testing this approach in architectural design education.

The impact of CPBI is examined through the following research objectives:

Explore the impact of CPBI on student design skills in a design studio setting.

Identify the perceived benefits and challenges of integrating CPBI into design education.

Investigate if CPBI can effectively promote systematic design thinking, balancing creativity and rationality.

This research scope concentrated on three primary architectural aspects: formal development, aesthetic definition through syntax and vocabulary, and program refinement. Other design considerations, such as economic, environmental, and cultural factors, were not part of the study’s scope.

The significance of this study in architectural education lies in addressing the fundamental pedagogical challenge of bridging abstract design thinking with digital implementation, aligning with contemporary educational approaches that increasingly emphasize technology integration. The proposed CPBI framework creates an integrated framework that develops transferable design knowledge by systematically extracting and translating design knowledge from precedents into BIM-based parametric models. This approach repositions BIM from a technical tool to an integral environment for early-stage design exploration, thereby supporting the development of design methodologies that balance analytical rigor with creative exploration. Consequently, it fosters interdisciplinary, technology-enhanced learning experiences with implications for both architectural education and professional practice.

2. Background

2.1. Architectural Design

Architecture transcends the physical act of building to encompass a comprehensive body of knowledge shaped by diverse demands. This complexity manifests in the architectural design process, which requires balancing practical, cultural, social, and philosophical considerations while integrating an aesthetic dimension [1]. These considerations function as design constraints that architects must explore, compromise, or exploit to focus on the central problem of architecture, which is form [2].

Central to this process is the creation of a formal language that addresses these multidimensional constraints [2,6]. Knight [25] conceptualizes architectural design as the systematic formulating of a formal language wherein grammatical spatial relations govern vocabularies of architectural elements. This structured approach manifests in recognizable styles characterized by the consistent application of specific compositional rules and design vocabularies [26,27]. Knight [27] further posits that existing formal languages can be used to derive new ones through “stylistic change,” a process of modifying the language’s rules and vocabulary.

Building on this understanding of formal language, Christopher Alexander’s seminal work on pattern language explored the application of patterns as rulesets to address the complexity of design [3]. Alexander views form as a manifestation of negotiated decisions informed by forces, constraints, and opportunities identified through precedents [3,17]. Consequently, this rational method of reusing accumulated experiential knowledge through prior design solutions has made precedent study a foundational strategy in architectural design practice and education [5,28].

In architectural education, the design studio constitutes the pedagogical core of the curriculum, where iterative processes of idea generation, experimentation, and evaluation occur [6,29]. However, criticism has arisen for prioritizing intuitive form-making over structured processes [4,5]. This emphasis on intuitive approaches partly stems from the impracticality of expecting students to develop novel design languages, a process that typically requires decades of professional experience or even an entire career [15]. Furthermore, this challenge is compounded by the lack of explicit methods for teaching systematic design, evaluation, and refinement processes [4,14,15,30]. To address these issues, a shift toward rationalism in the design studio can help restore the balance between creativity and systematic inquiry [13,14]. In this context, integrating precedents and computational design methods, such as parametric modeling, has emerged as a promising approach to support design reasoning and facilitate systematic design exploration [9,19].

2.2. Precedent-Based Instruction (PBI)

In design education, precedent-based instruction (PBI) refers to the pedagogical use of prior solutions to guide new designs [15]. This process can be traced back to Jean-Nicolas-Louis Durand (1760–1834). It involves comparative studies of architectural precedents to identify successful patterns that support the creation of similar design styles or languages [17,31,32]. PBI offers several benefits for design education, particularly in enabling analogical reasoning [32]. For instance, it informs composition and develops analytical skills by extracting principles applied across representations [26,32,33,34]. Analyzing a range of precedents helps designers to identify common patterns, which can be categorized into broader typologies to provide benchmarks for evaluating new designs [3,35]. Thus, PBI aims to systematically rationalize the design process’s analysis, synthesis, and evaluation stages [15,32].

However, current informal PBI approaches face limitations. Students tend to focus on the physical characteristics of the precedents and form-making as the primary design goal, neglecting the exploration of design principles and languages [15,16,36,37]. Moreover, knowledge extraction from precedents is often restricted by narrow criteria focusing on functional resemblances or imitable surface features [38].

Pattern-based analysis provides a systematic framework for comprehensive precedent study by examining architectural examples typologically to extract spatial, organizational, and stylistic patterns [6,17,18]. These patterns exhibit flexibility, allowing for formal variations due to site, program, or scale constraints, thus enabling non-exact reproduction. The goal of this approach is not to duplicate precedents but to uncover their underlying formal patterns that remain applicable across different architectural expressions and contexts [17]. Central to this approach are comparative analysis and diagramming techniques. Comparative analysis enables designers to examine multiple precedents to identify shared patterns and recurring typologies [31,39]. According to Alexander [3], “constructive diagrams” are crucial in this process. These diagrams enable designers to identify design elements, rules, and constraints explicitly. They serve as indices and queries, facilitating the retrieval and utilization of relevant information from precedents [40,41]. However, further research is still needed on structured PBI models, particularly in developing applicable models that emphasize patterns as a means of system resolution rather than symbolism [17,32,38].

2.3. Computational Design (CD)

Computational design (CD) in architecture has gained increasing attention in recent years, driven by the growing emphasis on computational thinking (CT) in education [42,43,44]. Research indicates that CT skills can be enhanced through integrating computational methods with project-based learning (PBL) [45,46], an approach particularly relevant to architectural education. In architecture, CD applies systemic thinking to address design problems through bottom-up design processes that derive design solutions. This approach offers a comprehensive perspective on interaction patterns that determine system behavior [47]. Through paradigms such as generative systems, parametric modeling, and performance simulations, CD has broadened its influence within the field of architecture [9].

Parametric modeling, a core component of CD, employs associative geometry to establish dependencies, define the transformational behavior of objects, and rigorously explore design alternatives [9,19,20,28]. This methodology provides a flexible framework for generating multiple design alternatives while integrating various aspects of the design process [10]. However, a significant challenge persists in effectively translating high-level cognitive-driven design constraints into quantifiable design solutions [10,11,12]. Students frequently prioritize form-making and digital tool utilization while struggling to formulate explicit design rules that comprehensively address various design problems [48]. To overcome this challenge, architecture educators can implement several strategies:

Utilizing diagrammatic thinking to facilitate the translation of conceptual ideas into parametric solutions [49].

Establishing a symbiotic relationship between the designer and computational process to strengthen CT integration [28,50,51].

Incorporating precedent analysis into CT-focused studios to help students understand how different design solutions were achieved [28,50,52].

These strategies can enhance the integration of CT into architectural design education, promoting more structured and systematic design approaches.

2.4. Integrating Precedents and Computational Design

The integration of precedents and computational thinking in architecture has been widely investigated to facilitate systematic design knowledge extraction and application [53]. Precedents provide validated solutions to guide the modeling of experiential knowledge [54] and overcome the difficulty of teaching design [28,50,55].

Over the years, researchers have investigated various methods to integrate precedents and computational thinking, including shape grammar, case-based design (CBD) systems, and, recently, parametric modeling. Shape grammar has been explored to encode architectural styles as shapes governed by predetermined rules [26,27,56,57]. However, this approach has been criticized for its inflexibility and limited scope [58]. CBD systems, such as Archie-II, CADRE, PRECEDENTS, FABEL, and SEED, focus mainly on case representation, retrieval, and adaptation [59,60]. Although CBD tools offer access to precedents, relying solely on limited databases of physical form can obstruct creativity. As a result, designers risk replicating designs instead of being engaged in a deeper exploration of the precedents’ logical foundations. This passive approach reduces designers to mere users who are disengaged from actively selecting, analyzing, and adapting precedents to create new solutions [61]. Consequently, this limited engagement with CBD tools hinders their educational potential, impeding the development of higher-order cognitive skills among students [62].

The integration of precedents and parametric modeling has recently emerged as a topic of interest, providing designers with flexible means to develop architectural design patterns by reusing established design strategies or solutions [63]. While several preliminary studies have explored this approach [10,20,21,64,65], the focus has often been on mapping a limited number of patterns into parametric systems using visual programming languages (VPLs). For example, educational applications have focused on creating small-scale building components like facades [21] and curved surfaces [66]. However, addressing design complexity requires investigating relationships between patterns at the scale of entire buildings to formulate a formal language [21]. Therefore, there is a need to explore diverse parametric modeling tools to effectively integrate precedents and map design patterns across entire architectural compositions [65].

Building Information Modeling (BIM) tools offer significant potential for integrating precedent analysis and parametric modeling. BIM encompasses object-oriented parametric software that encodes geometric and functional building information into digital models [22,67]. Notably, BIM tools like Autodesk Revit inherently embody the principles of formal language through their logic, supporting parametric families, relationships between elements, and hierarchical structures [23]. This alignment presents an opportunity to leverage BIM as a pedagogical tool that supports systematic design thinking by explicitly representing formal knowledge in parallel with other building constraints.

However, despite these capabilities, BIM’s usage in professional practice predominantly focuses on construction, operation, and maintenance processes [68]. This practical orientation has influenced architectural education, where BIM application has been largely confined to later design phases [69], focusing mostly on representing buildings’ functional and technical knowledge [70]. This narrow implementation has marginalized fundamental architectural concerns, particularly composition, spatial quality, and aesthetic considerations [71,72,73].

This pedagogical gap reflects broader challenges in integrating BIM comprehensively into architectural curricula. Educators face difficulties including insufficient theoretical and practical knowledge regarding BIM integration into already content-heavy curricula [74]. Additionally, architectural education has been influenced by the dominance of pedagogical methods derived from civil engineering and construction management perspectives. This influence narrows BIM instruction to focus mainly on the technical aspects of building rather than broader architectural considerations [75,76]. To address these issues, integrating BIM learning modules throughout core design studios can enable students to simultaneously develop both BIM technical capabilities and architectural conceptual understanding [75].

Building on this foundation and addressing the identified challenges in both precedent-based learning and BIM implementation, this research hypothesizes that integrating precedent analysis with BIM-based parametric modeling in architecture design education can support design reasoning and foster systematic design thinking in design studios. To investigate this hypothesis, the study aims to empirically examine the integration of precedent-based instruction (PBI) and BIM-based parametric modeling within an architectural design studio. The primary focus is how this integration can systematically facilitate the extraction, synthesis, and application of design knowledge through a novel pedagogical model termed Computational Precedent-Based Instruction (CPBI).

3. Methods

3.1. Research Design

This study employed a mixed-methods approach combining model-based inquiry and quasi-experimental research to investigate the potential of implementing CPBI in architectural design education. The research design comprised two sequential phases: pedagogical model development and an initial empirical exploration to assess its impact.

3.1.1. Phase 1—Development of the CPBI Model

The CPBI model development encompassed two primary components: a computational framework and a pedagogical model. First, the computational framework was developed using Autodesk Revit Architecture^® (v2023), selected as the primary BIM platform for its robust massing tools, versatility in addressing project aspects, and computational design support. The platform’s object-based parametric modeling capabilities, which align with the syntactic structure and rules of formal systems, further substantiated its selection for this investigation [24]. Subsequently, a pedagogical model was developed to facilitate the framework’s integration within the design studio.

3.1.2. Phase 2—Empirical Study

The empirical study phase employed a convenience sampling method [77]. Nineteen third-year undergraduate architecture students were randomly assigned to the researcher’s course section of the Architecture Design III course at the University of Jordan (UJ, Amman, Jordan) during Fall 2023. This course was selected for its focus on conceptual design development, introducing digital tools for the first time while addressing functional planning, spatial ordering, and form generation logic. Notably, participants had no prior exposure to BIM or computational design as digital tools were restricted in earlier years. This ensures that students are well-suited to assess the impact of the CPBI model.

Participants were tasked with applying the CPBI model to design a 3000 m² student center. This design addressed formal, functional, and some primary contextual design constraints. The selection of an appropriate test case was guided by Kalay’s [78] assertion that computational modeling requires design problems with consistent rules and vocabularies, given that not all design processes are readily computable due to their reliance on intuition and creativity. This theoretical foundation informed the selection of the New York Five architects (Peter Eisenman, Michael Graves, Charles Gwathmey, John Hejduk, and Richard Meier) as precedents, given their shared formal strategies and systematic design language [79,80]. Furthermore, the researcher’s dual role as educator facilitated ‘prolonged engagement’ with the students and provided an insider’s perspective that deepened observational insights and reinforced the study’s credibility [81].

3.2. Data Collection and Analysis

The mixed-methods approach combined quantitative and qualitative data collection methods, including pre–post surveys, student work analysis, and observational data.

The surveys used a five-point Likert scale to measure students’ perceptions of the pedagogical model’s efficacy before and after the intervention. This scale’s odd-numbered structure permitted participants to express indecision or neutrality, mitigating response bias [82]. The survey components covered critical aspects of the study, encompassing the design process, the role of diagrams, the impact of the integrated BIM tool, and students’ self-efficacy beliefs. Self-efficacy reflects an individual’s belief in their capacity to achieve desired outcomes [83]. The survey data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Due to the non-normal distribution of the sample, the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, a non-parametric hypothesis test, was employed [84].

The analysis of students’ work was conducted by two external architecture experts with prior experience in evaluating student projects. A competency matrix was used to assess the depth of precedent analysis, the accuracy in reflecting the formal language of the chosen architect, and the quality of diagrammatic reasoning. To facilitate the review process, students provided analytical diagrams highlighting the design patterns used as part of a self-assessment phase. This reflective phase, identified by Boud and Falchikov [85], fosters a deeper understanding of skills, enhancing the accuracy of post-test surveys. Inter-rater reliability was ensured through joint and individual coding, followed by consensus discussions. Students used a standardized Revit template to unify graphics, prioritizing design merit over graphical proficiency in evaluations.

Lastly, as the educator, the researcher conducted semi-structured observations supplemented by note-taking. As per Cohen, Manion, and Morrison [81], this qualitative method provides a comprehensive perspective for interpreting quantitative results and enhances understanding of experiential outcomes.

3.3. Limitations and Ethical Considerations

The generalizability of this research is constrained by its small sample size, single project focus, and lack of a control group. The dual role of the researcher as both educator and observer may have introduced bias despite efforts to include external evaluations. Additionally, the 14-week duration may be insufficient to assess long-term impacts, highlighting the need for future longitudinal studies.

Ethical considerations were addressed through informed consent, voluntary participation, and survey anonymity. Strategies like prolonged engagement, data triangulation, external review, and comprehensive contextual description of the research process were employed to strengthen the research’s reliability and validity [81].

Despite these limitations, this study serves as a valuable in-depth exploratory investigation, given the lack of similar research integrating precedent study and BIM in design studios. It lays a foundation for future, more comprehensive investigations into the role of CPBI in architectural design education.

4. The CPBI Model

The development of the CPBI model included two phases: (1) establishing a computational design framework to facilitate modeling a formal language parametrically in BIM, and (2) developing a studio pedagogy for implementing this computational framework.

4.1. Computational Design Framework

The computational design framework employs Revit for its alignment with the concept of formal language. It adopts a “divide and conquer” strategy to hierarchically decompose a formal system into subsystems. This approach establishes three key relationships between Revit’s modeling environments, as illustrated in Figure 1 using Le Corbusier’s Villa Stein de Monzie. These environments operate through the following key relationships:

Dissection: The Family Editor (FE) creates a library of parametric vocabulary, including both conceptual elements (e.g., planes, volumes) and construction components (e.g., roofs, walls, doors). Two types of conceptual families can be developed: Primitive Vocabulary and Composite Vocabulary (combinations of Primitive Vocabularies). Relationships and dependencies are defined through parameters (e.g., formulas dimension parameters) and constraints (e.g., equality, alignment, dimension). The modeling method for each vocabulary governs its transformational behavior when parameters are flexed. These vocabularies integrate text and material parameters, transforming them into semantically rich parametric families that distinguish formal roles within the architectural system. Primitive Vocabularies function as basic formal elements (such as additions or subtractions), while Composite Vocabularies operate as more complex organizational elements. This differentiation establishes a clear structure and hierarchy within the design process.

Articulation: The Conceptual Design Environment (CDE) serves dual functions: generating primary syntactic units and integrating these units with conceptual vocabularies to construct the principal parametric diagram. The CDE formulates syntactic units using reference lines, planes, parameters, and constraints. For instance, a syntactic unit can define the main mass with its parametric spatial layering system, which can be further articulated through additive and subtractive operations using the conceptual vocabularies developed in the FE. Parameters and constraints establish relationships between the conceptual vocabularies and the syntactic units to create an adaptable design framework. The result is a parametric conceptual diagram that explicitly defines formal relationships such as axiality, proportions, and modularity between design elements. To further improve visual clarity, the parametric diagram incorporates color-coded regulating lines and planes.

Actualization: The Project Environment (PE) converts the conceptual diagram into a built form by attaching construction vocabulary. It mediates between abstract diagrammatic representations and their physical manifestations, establishing cognitive bridges between conceptual and tangible architectural forms. The parametric attributes of the conceptual diagram enable dynamic modifications within the PE, ensuring bidirectional correspondence between conceptual elements and their architectural realization.

The computational design framework integrates dissection, articulation, and actualization methods to convert formal concepts into built forms. The approach generates a parametric diagram that explicitly represents the design’s vocabulary and grammatical relationships. This integration streamlines the design process by dynamically transferring changes across Revit environments to support iterative and flexible design process.

Figure 1

The computational design framework with linked Revit environments illustrated through Le Corbusier’s Villa Stein de Monzie. The diagram demonstrates the hierarchical relationships between the Family Editor (dissection), Conceptual Design Environment (articulation), and Project Environment (actualization) [24].

[Figure omitted. See PDF]

4.2. Pedagogical Model Design

The pedagogical model operationalizes the computational framework within the architectural design studio. It integrates theoretical knowledge and practical skills through three main components: BIM-based parametric modeling, precedent study, and the design studio project (Figure 2). The initial phase of the design studio comprises three concurrent activities:

The design research phase engages students in gathering essential data for their designs, encompassing site analysis and architectural program development through functional case studies.

The BIM-based component provides hands-on training and interactive tutorials in Autodesk Revit to implement the computational design framework.

The precedent study component, supported by lectures and workshops, guides students through comparative analytical studies to dissect formal language and identify recurring design patterns across multiple precedents.

Subsequently, in the iterative project-based learning phase, these three components converge into a non-linear design process. Students encode patterns extracted from precedents into BIM models and configure these into parametric conceptual diagrams that reflect their design intentions. This process is characterized by continuous pattern recoding, enabling detailed analysis of recurring design patterns and facilitating systematic model development that translates conceptual design patterns into BIM representations.

Figure 2

The pedagogical model.

[Figure omitted. See PDF]

5. Empirical Study: The Studio

The empirical study evaluated CPBI’s effectiveness in a 14-week architectural design studio course with 19 third-year students lacking prior BIM experience. Students were tasked with designing a 3000 m² student center on the university campus. The studio structure encompassed three sequential phases: Knowledge Building, Concept Formation, and Design Resolution (Figure 3).

5.1. Knowledge-Building Phase (4 Weeks)

The initial phase integrated three parallel streams: design research, precedent study, and BIM learning. Through collaborative engagement, students conducted site analysis and investigated functional requirements to develop an architectural program for the student center.

Individually, each student analyzed an architect’s work from the NY5 to identify distinctive design vocabularies and principles. Specific precedents were selected based on each architect’s early and most representative works, emphasizing shared formal features identified in the Five Architects book [86]. For Richard Meier, students selected projects from his official website, ensuring attribution to Meier himself rather than his partners. For Peter Eisenman, selections were limited to his early houses—Houses I, II, III, IV, and VI. Charles Gwathmey’s works were drawn from Charles Gwathmey and Robert Siegel: Buildings and Projects, 1964–1984 [87]. For Michael Graves, students analyzed the Hanselmann House, Snyderman House, and Benacerraf House (1969–1972).

BIM training was divided into two stages: the first relied on online tutorials and Autodesk’s official training materials to introduce fundamental concepts, while the second consisted of a hands-on workshop focusing on the computational framework. The workshop emphasized the interoperability between Revit’s Family Editor (FE), Conceptual Design Environment (CDE), and Project Environment (PE), ensuring students grasped how these modeling environments interact within a parametric design workflow.

During the hands-on workshop, students developed skills across Revit’s integrated environments. In the FE, they created semantically rich parametric families with dimensional and material parameters. Students modeled secondary elements for additive and subtractive operations, implementing type parameters to distinguish between solid masses (gray) and voids (orange). Additionally, they incorporated dimensional, material, and text parameters to develop conceptual families for volumetric architectural program studies.

In the CDE, students constructed rectangular syntactic units and parametrized spatial layering systems representing primary volumes characteristic of NY5 architectural language. They established relationships between parameters, creating proportional systems by defining modular values and associating dimensional parameters through formulas. Students practiced implementing common NY5 spatial organizations such as ABABA patterns—adaptations of Renaissance spatial subdivisions alternating narrow and wide bays.

Students then developed parametric conceptual diagrams in new CDE files where they imported spatial layering systems and articulation vocabularies. This process established hierarchical relationships between elements and enabled articulation of main masses through additions and subtractions, with relationships defined through parameters and constraints.

In the PE, students applied construction elements to actualize their conceptual diagrams. The workshop concluded with each student modeling a precedent and parametrizing its formal logic (Figure 4). This exercise enabled students to systematically deconstruct and reconstruct architectural precedents as parametric models. This approach created a cognitive bridge between theoretical analysis and computational implementation, setting the foundation for the subsequent design phase.

5.2. Concept Formation Phase (6 Weeks)

This phase marked the iterative project-based learning stage where students simultaneously developed volumetric program arrangements and conceptual diagrams. Their approaches were informed by their chosen NY5 architect’s distinct spatial organization strategies, as each architect employs unique methods for arranging public and private spaces around defined axes.

Through an iterative process, students refined a basic stacked program in parallel with defining the main syntactic mass and its spatial layering system. This process involved defining circulation axes, establishing clear public–private subdivisions, and articulating the form through additive and subtractive operations (Figure 5 and Figure 6). The parametric nature of their models facilitated rapid testing of alternative spatial configurations while maintaining consistency with the formal language of their precedent studies. As designs gained complexity and resolution, students progressively actualized their conceptual diagrams by implementing essential building elements—walls, floors, and roofs—within the PE.

Throughout this phase, instructor feedback and peer discussions during regular pin-up sessions served as essential formative assessment opportunities. These evaluations helped students to assess their translation of precedents into new designs and identify inconsistencies in their formal logic.

5.3. Design Resolution Phase (4 Weeks)

The Design Resolution Phase represented the final stage of the project, where students refined and finalized their proposals. This phase emphasized an understanding of the interrelationships between architectural patterns across multiple scales—from abstract organizational principles to concrete building elements. Students mapped design patterns across entire architectural configurations and explored their interaction and impact on experiential qualities (Figure 7, Figure 8, Figure 9 and Figure 10).

During this phase, students deepened their understanding of spatial and functional patterns and their translation into concrete building elements. The relationship between spatial layering systems and public–private patterns was reinforced through detailed interior layout development within the PE. This process revealed that the abstract spatial layering system in the conceptual diagram serves critical functional purposes rather than existing as an arbitrary formal device. It plays an essential role in regulating spatial planning. Students established clear connections between public/private patterns and corresponding spatial planning strategies. These relationships directly influenced building element selection. For private areas, students implemented cellular plans with load-bearing walls to create defined, enclosed spaces. In contrast, public areas utilized open plans, with floating platforms penetrated by free-standing columns to facilitate more fluid and transparent environments (Figure 9).

Building upon their earlier work with modular systems, students further refined their designs by employing custom parametric families and constraints to achieve sophisticated proportional refinement. They implemented common NY5 proportional systems (1:1, 1:2, golden ratio, 1: √2) in both plan and elevation. This method allowed them to establish relationships between external form and internal organization more efficiently. Through this process, students gained critical insights into proportional systems as practical design instruments rather than merely abstract mathematical concepts or aesthetic considerations (Figure 8).

Furthermore, students explored various articulation options for spatial experiences. They focused on understanding the impact of abstract formal decisions on tangible user experience. With each iteration of decisions about addition, subtraction, and axiality in the CDE, they updated their models to rapidly generate and compare design alternatives. Real-time rendering tools, such as Enscape 3.5, facilitated immediate visualization of design consequences. Through this process, students developed and articulated syntactical centers—a key NY5 design pattern—positioned at the intersection of the main axes. These centers were characterized by multi-volumetric compositions of platforms, free-standing columns, and expansive curtain wall systems. They functioned as the building’s primary public spaces where the primary social interactions took place. The syntactical center pattern exemplified students’ ability to translate abstract architectural concepts into tangible expressions while synthesizing spatial, formal, and functional patterns (Figure 10).

The Design Resolution Phase incorporated self-assessment as a fundamental component of the learning process. Students used provided Revit view templates to generate analytical diagrams that illustrated defined design patterns, including part–whole relationships, public–private distinctions, and syntactical center configurations, thereby facilitating critical reflection on their evolving designs (Figure 6, Figure 7, Figure 8, Figure 9 and Figure 10). By the end of this phase, students had fully actualized their conceptual models in the PE by incorporating detailed architectonic elements. Finally, the phase concluded with post-test surveys to assess students’ perceived knowledge gains upon completion of the project.

6. Findings

This section presents quantitative and qualitative findings from pre-test and post-test surveys, external reviews, and observations. These results aim to explore the impact of CPBI on students’ performance in the design studio.

6.1. Pre-Test and Post-Test Surveys

Table 1 and Table 2 highlight the impact of CPBI across several dimensions: students’ perception of the design process (Q1–5), the role of diagrams (Q6–7), the use of Revit (Q8–10), and their self-efficacy (Q11–14).

Mean (M) ratings increased from 0.42 to 2.74 points across domains. The median (Mdn) shifted from 2–3 to 4–5, indicating convergence towards higher competency perceptions. Wilcoxon signed-rank analysis revealed statistically significant positive shifts from pre-test to post-test across most survey measures (p < 0.05) with large effect sizes (|r| > = 0.5).

Significant improvements were noted in students’ confidence in analyzing precedents (Q12, r = −0.62), using principles from precedents (Q13, r = −0.61), and describing design vocabulary (Q2, r = −0.60) and rules (Q3, r = −0.60). Students also improved with respect to perceiving design as a systematic process (Q1, r = −0.55) and recognizing BIM’s role in architectural design (Q8, r = −0.55). This was evident in their increased confidence in using BIM for design (Q11, r = −0.59) and decision-making (Q14, r = −0.59). Significant improvements were also observed in using diagrams for generative (Q7, r = −0.59) and analytical (Q6, r = −0.55) purposes.

Additionally, moderate positive effects were observed in achieving style consistency (Q5, r = −0.51) and BIM’s influence on selecting design elements (Q9, r = −0.48). However, the consideration of real-world construction constraints on design (Q4) showed minimal positive effects (r = −0.18), as these constraints were not directly emphasized in the model, under the assumption that engagement with the BIM tool would implicitly address them.

6.2. External Review of Student Work

Two architectural experts assessed students’ projects using a 16-criteria competency matrix (Figure 11). This review focused on assessing the architectural quality of the projects, similar to a typical design critique. The evaluation covered four key areas: depth of precedent analysis, translation of the NY5 architect’s design logic, technical building considerations, and diagrammatic abilities.

The competency scale in Figure 11 was guided by established educational assessment frameworks, particularly Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy and the SOLO Taxonomy, with specific considerations for architectural design studio assessment practices at the University of Jordan (UJ). It aligns with grading systems from previous design studios and was calibrated against parallel design sections within the same academic year.

The results revealed that 63% (12 of 19) of participants demonstrated proficient or mastery-level performance, highlighting the potential efficacy of the CPBI model to facilitate the development of design skills. Notably, high competencies were observed in applying core architectural principles such as axiality (M = 4.21), part–whole relationships (M = 4.05), modularity (M = 4.00), and proportional planning systems (M = 3.79). The students also excelled in complex design aspects like spatial layering (M = 3.89), syntactic centrality (M = 3.84), and public–private duality (M = 3.79). The high mean score for precedent analysis (M = 3.79) further substantiates that a comprehensive understanding of the formal language of the selected architect significantly enhanced students’ capacity to apply these principles effectively in their design work.

However, the review identified areas requiring further additional pedagogical attention, particularly in functional planning (M = 3.42) and contextual integration (M = 3.37). Additionally, 21% of the students (4 of 19) showed beginner-level skills (mean < 3), indicating a need for strategies that accommodate diverse learning styles.

6.3. Observations

Implementing the CPBI model yielded several significant observations, highlighting its effectiveness and identifying areas for refinement.

Analytical Proficiency and Computational Integration

Students’ analytical capabilities correlated with their ability to integrate computational methods and precedent studies. Those with robust analytical skills effectively abstracted and encoded architectural patterns. Less proficient students struggled to differentiate conceptual and construction elements, impacting their use of Revit’s environments.

Precedent Complexity and Integration Outcomes

There was a correlation between the complexity of architectural precedents and the ease of integration into the CPBI model. Highly structured precedents—particularly those by Richard Meier and Charles Gwathmey—facilitated more accessible parametric translation. Meier’s wide range of available works made his projects the most selected, followed by Gwathmey’s. Some students initially selected Eisenman’s and Graves’s precedents, but due to their limited number and more formally complex nature, many shifted to the more straightforward work of Meier or Gwathmey. Hejduk was not selected, as students found his symbolic, figural approach incompatible with the campus’s architectural language.

Accordingly, having multiple architects, despite their shared formal strategies, created decision paralysis among some students. This manifested as hesitation in selecting the most appropriate architectural precedent, resulting in students switching between architects during the initial weeks of the studio. This indecision ultimately impacted their ability to achieve fully developed designs by the end of the studio.

Building Complexity

The CPBI model facilitated a gradual refinement of students’ BIM models by allowing them to expand parameters and constraints as their understanding deepened, thereby progressively enhancing the model’s complexity. As students became more proficient in the workflow, the design iterations accelerated, enabling rapid creative exploration and overcoming of the initial steep learning curve.

Structured Knowledge Appreciation

During critiques, students showed an increasing appreciation for structured design knowledge, shifting from intuitive to precedent-based reasoning. This transition reflected a more systematic, exploratory approach. At the end of the studio, students expressed enthusiasm for using CPBI to explore other design languages.

Instructor-to-Student Ratio

The 1:19 instructor-to-student ratio limited individualized support, particularly in functional planning and contextual integration. This caused delays in addressing technical queries and providing timely feedback, highlighting the need for additional instructional support.

7. Discussion and Conclusions

This research develops and empirically assesses the Computational Precedent-Based Instruction (CPBI) model to address key pedagogical challenges in architectural education. Contemporary architectural education has struggled to establish structured methodologies that effectively balance creative intuition with systematic design processes [4,5]. While integrating precedent analysis with computational methods presents a promising pedagogical approach [63], three critical gaps have persisted in design education. First, existing frameworks rarely examine precedents typologically to systematically extract organizational patterns and design principles [6,17]. Second, students face substantial difficulties in translating abstract architectural concepts into parameterized computational solutions [10,11,13,14,15]. Third, previous studies exploring precedent analysis with parametric modeling have primarily focused on mapping isolated patterns rather than investigating pattern interrelationships at the whole-building scale [3,6,21]. The CPBI model addresses these challenges by establishing a framework that combines typological precedent analysis with BIM to explicitly represent a formal language and translate abstract concepts into parametric design solutions.

The research objectives included assessing the impact of CPBI on student design skills, identifying perceived benefits and challenges, and evaluating the promotion of systematic design thinking. To investigate these objectives, a mixed-methods approach was employed, incorporating quantitative surveys, external reviews, and qualitative observations.

Quantitative pre–post surveys revealed substantial improvements in students’ design competencies, particularly in precedent analysis, principle application, and design articulation. External review findings corroborated these results, though with notable discrepancies—while 63% demonstrated proficient or mastery-level performance, a significant 37% of students remained at beginner-level skills despite CPBI exposure. This suggests that while the model shows promise, its effectiveness varies considerably across the student population. Statistical analysis (Wilcoxon signed-rank tests with large effect sizes |r| ≥ 0.5) suggests that CPBI facilitates a deeper understanding and application of architectural formal concepts, aligning with established theories on the value of precedents in supporting analytical abilities [54], analogical reasoning [32], and form generation [26,34]. Furthermore, observations indicated that integrating precedents and computational design fostered exploratory experimentation, aligning with prior research [19,28]. Survey and external review results highlighted the value of diagrams in this process as a thinking tool to externalize design logic and connect precedent study with computational experimentation, reinforcing Gross, Ervin, Anderson, and Fleisher [49]’s assertions. The CPBI model proved particularly effective for analytically proficient students, enabling commendable abstraction and parameterization of architectural patterns. However, less proficient students struggled, underscoring not merely the necessity of strong foundational skills but revealing a concerning stratification effect—a fundamental limitation in the model’s accessibility for diverse learning styles and cognitive approaches that must be addressed in future iterations. This dependency on pre-existing analytical aptitude raises potential educational equity concerns as high-performing students advanced quickly while others lagged substantially behind.

The relationship between precedent complexity and integration outcomes proved significant. Highly structured precedents (e.g., Meier and Gwathmey) enabled more accessible parametric translation, explaining their popularity among students and highlighting the importance of careful precedent selection when implementing CPBI. This finding reveals a critical limitation: the model appears most effective with formally systematic architectural precedents and may have limited applicability to more complex and conceptually driven languages. This might constrain the model’s utility across the breadth of contemporary architectural education, which values a diversity of approaches. Despite shared formal strategies, studying the language of multiple architects created decision paralysis in some students, affecting project timelines and ultimately limiting design development. This finding suggests a fundamental tension within the model between providing diverse precedents for learning and creating an environment that supports timely decision-making and project completion. While precedent diversity offers valuable learning opportunities, the model would benefit from a more structured framework for selecting precedents.

The findings also indicated areas needing improvement, particularly in functional planning, contextual integration, and practical construction constraints. These issues, reflected in low mean scores from the external review results (e.g., contextual integration = 3.37), suggest that the CPBI model’s focus on formal abstraction may overlook critical considerations such as site, user, and tectonic dimensions. This underlines the need to complement the CPBI with more design components, particularly when applied in more advanced studios or real-world projects.

A parallel concern arising from the implementation is the potential for students to become overly reliant on precedents or BIM tools, which may inadvertently constrain creative exploration. While the CPBI model effectively cultivates structured thinking, it can also limit students’ ability to generate novel design solutions that move beyond the boundaries of their analyzed precedents. To mitigate this risk, it is essential to encourage students to evolve and transform their design language in subsequent semesters. This aligns with Knight’s [27] concept of ‘stylistic change,’ wherein designers adapt and reinterpret the underlying rules and elements of established or codified design languages to foster originality and innovation.

The limited instructor-to-student ratio (1:19) significantly constrained individualized support and timely feedback during implementation. This highlights not only a logistical challenge but also a potential limitation of the CPBI model itself, which appears to require more instructional resources than traditional approaches. Consequently, the model’s effectiveness may be compromised in resource-constrained educational environments.

Despite these limitations, this research is significant for its innovative integration of computational thinking and digital tools in architectural design education. This research does not claim that CPBI represents the only or optimal method for integrating computational design and precedents into architectural education, nor does it assert that it is the best way to teach design. However, as an exploratory study, it highlights CPBI’s potential to address specific pedagogical challenges while acknowledging several inherent limitations.

The CPBI model aligns with contemporary research advocating for structured approaches in design education and addresses the growing emphasis on digital methods, particularly BIM. It contributes to the field by providing systematic knowledge extraction and application from precedents to represent a formal language. It enables students to identify and translate design patterns into BIM-based parametric models. Additionally, CPBI allows students to explore design variations and promote iterative processes by incorporating ongoing feedback and allowing for continuous refinement of the parametric model. Crucially, CPBI bridges the gap between conceptual design thinking and digital tools, repositioning BIM as an integral design environment to enhance its role in the early design stages.

The findings have significant implications for architectural education and practice. CPBI offers a framework for integrating computational thinking and digital tools into curricula, responding to contemporary pedagogical needs. It balances creative thinking with technical proficiency, helping students connect theoretical knowledge to practical application. CPBI prepares students for increasingly digital and complex professional practices by developing skills in BIM and parametric modeling. Furthermore, CPBI’s systematic approach to knowledge extraction and application extends beyond educational settings, potentially enhancing design process efficiency in architectural practice and facilitating clearer communication of abstract design concepts during early design phases.

To fully realize CPBI’s potential, future research must address several critical dimensions. The limited sample size necessitates broader implementation with diverse student populations and control group comparisons to establish generalizable findings. Methodological refinements should include developing structured methods for precedent selection to evaluate their impact on learning outcomes. Additional research priorities include testing the model with advanced studios to explore novel design language development, investigating how early studio preparation in abstract thinking and computational thinking (CT) supports engagement with the CPBI model, and determining optimal resource requirements for effective implementation. Future studies should also incorporate advanced computational approaches such as performance-driven generative design. Longitudinal assessments are needed to evaluate CPBI’s long-term impact on design thinking and professional readiness. This research agenda is essential for validating the model’s broader applicability and effectiveness in architectural education.

In conclusion, this research provides initial evidence that CPBI has significant potential to contribute to architectural education through integrating typological precedent analysis and computational design methods. It bridges the gap between conceptual design thinking and digital implementation. While refinements are needed, the findings reveal promising directions warranting ongoing investigation. More broadly, CPBI establishes a structured pedagogical framework that balances creative intuition with systematic processes, equipping students with the skills needed to navigate the complexities of an increasingly digital and interconnected built environment.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable. This study involves no more than minimal risk to subjects and it was conducted within the framework of normal educational practice in an established academic setting.

Informed Consent Statement

Verbal informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. Participants were informed of the nature of the research, and their voluntary participation was confirmed by completing the pre and post surveys.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the author on request.

Acknowledgments

The author acknowledges the use of AI tools, including ChatGPT-4o and Claude 3.7 Sonnet, for editing and enhancing the readability and writing style of the manuscript in the final stages of writing. All sentences generated by the AI tools have been reviewed by the author. The author is fully responsible for the content of the manuscript, including any sections produced by AI, and is thus liable for any breach of publication ethics. The author also sincerely thanks the students of the of Architecture Design III course at the University of Jordan (UJ) for their active participation and invaluable contributions to this research. Their engagement with the CPBI model was instrumental in shaping the outcomes of this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:

BIM	Building Information Modeling
PBI	Precedent-based instruction
CD	Computational design
CT	Computational thinking
PBL	Project-based learning
CBD	Case-based design
CPBI	Computational Precedent-Based Instruction
FE	Family Editor (in Revit)
CDE	Conceptual Design Environment (in Revit)
PE	Project Environment (in Revit)

Footnotes

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Figures and Tables

Figure 3 Studio timeline.

Figure 4 Morphological analyses of precedents using Revit.

Figure 5 (A) Creating a parametric conceptual diagram in the CDE with regulating lines (informed by Gwathmey); (B) refining a basic stacked program alongside the conceptual diagram (informed by Meier).

Figure 6 The realization of diagrams created in the CDE, showcasing the collective work of 12 students.

Figure 7 Part–whole relationships in plans.

Figure 8 Proportional systems in plans and elevations, including 1:1 (in blue), 1:2, golden ratio (in green), and 1: √2 (in red).

Figure 9 Public and private patterns in plans and sections (dark gray: private; light gray: public).

Figure 10 Configuration of the syntactic center in plan, section, and interior view with the overall exterior form.

Figure 11 The competency matrix.

Table 1

Pre-test and post-test survey questions.

Theme	Number	Question
Design Process and Understanding	Q1	On a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the most positive, I think design can be approached as a systematic process rather than an intuitive one.
	Q2	On a scale of 1–5, with 5 being the most positive, I can describe the main elements/vocabulary that I used in my project.
	Q3	On a scale of 1–5, with 5 being the most positive, I can describe the main rules/syntax that I used in my project.
	Q4	On a scale of 1–5, with 5 being the strongest, rate the influence of real-world construction constraints on your design.
	Q5	On a scale of 1–5, with 5 being the most positive, I can maintain a consistent style while generating multiple design options.
The Role of Diagrams in Design	Q6	On a scale of 1–5, with 5 being the strongest, diagrams played an analytical role in your design and helped you rationalize your design decisions.
	Q7	On a scale of 1–5, with 5 being the strongest, diagrams played a generative role in my design. It helped me in developing my form, thinking about my design, and laying out my design elements according to predefined rules.
Influence of Using BIM	Q8	On a scale of 1–5, with 5 being the strongest influence, rate how strongly Revit influenced your ability to create architectural forms.
	Q9	On a scale of 1–5, with 5 being the strongest influence, rate how strongly Revit influenced your selection of design elements and vocabulary.
	Q10	On a scale of 1–5, with 5 being the strongest influence, rate how strongly Revit influenced your determination of design rules.
Self-Efficacy	Q11	On a scale of 1–5, with 5 being the most positive, rate how confident you are in using digital media to carry out your design.
	Q12	On a scale of 1–5, with 5 being the most positive, rate how certain you are that you can thoroughly analyze the precedents that you chose for your design.
	Q13	On a scale of 1–5, with 5 being the most positive, rate how confident you are in using principles derived from precedents to inform your design.
	Q14	On a scale of 1–5, with 5 being the most positive, rate how confident you are in making design decisions, solving problems with effort, and accomplishing your goals.

Table 2

Pre–post test survey results.

	Central Tendency Measures				Variability Measures				Skewness Measures		Significance Test
	Mean (M)		Median (Mdn)		Standard Deviation (SD)		Range		Skewness (SE)		Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test Two Tail, p-Value (p < 0.05)
	Pre-Test	Post-Test	Pre-Test	Post-Test	Pre-Test	Post-Test	Pre-Test	Post-Test	Pre-Test	Post-Test	p	Z	Effect Size (r) = Z/√N *
Q1	3.11	4.37	3	4	0.99	0.60	3	2	−0.988	−0.305	0.00064	−3.4078	−0.553
Q2	2.37	4.53	2	5	0.96	0.77	3	3	0.420	−2.119	0.00020	−3.7236	−0.604
Q3	2.26	4.42	2	5	0.87	0.84	3	3	−0.014	−1.624	0.00022	−3.7023	−0.601
Q4	3.16	3.58	3	4	1.07	1.02	4	3	−0.041	−0.062	0.26700	−1.1075	−0.180
Q5	2.68	4.05	3	4	1.00	0.97	4	4	0.354	−1.745	0.00164	−3.1480	−0.511
Q6	2.42	4.21	2	4	1.12	1.03	4	4	0.616	−1.825	0.00072	−3.3847	−0.549
Q7	2.16	4.21	2	4	0.90	1.03	3	4	0.175	−1.825	0.00030	−3.6147	−0.586
Q8	2.63	4.00	3	4	0.83	1.11	3	4	−0.468	−1.379	0.00064	−3.4083	−0.553
Q9	2.74	3.95	3	4	1.19	1.27	4	4	0.351	−0.987	0.00318	−2.9534	−0.479
Q10	2.47	3.95	3	4	0.90	1.27	3	4	−0.164	−0.987	0.00096	−3.2958	−0.535
Q11	2.11	3.74	2	4	0.94	0.87	3	3	0.226	−0.548	0.00030	−3.6214	−0.587
Q12	1.11	3.84	1	4	0.32	0.76	1	3	2.798	−0.547	0.00014	−3.8230	−0.620
Q13	1.42	3.68	1	4	0.77	1.00	2	3	1.525	−0.385	0.00018	−3.7425	−0.607
Q14	2.32	4.05	2	4	0.95	0.85	3	3	0.157	−1.328	0.00030	−3.6214	−0.587

* Effect size (r) = Z/√N: (N = the total number of observations).

References

1. Hendrix, J. Theorizing a contradiction between form and function in architecture. S. Afr. J. Art Hist.; 2012; 27, pp. 9-28.

2. Alexander, C. Notes on the Synthesis of Form; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1964; Volume 5.

3. Alexander, C. A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1977.

4. Salama, A. A process oriented design pedagogy: KFUPM sophomore studio. Cent. Educ. Built Environ. Trans.; 2005; 2, pp. 16-31. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.11120/tran.2005.02020016]

5. Salingaros, N.A. Architecture, Patterns, and Mathematics. Nexus Netw. J.; 1999; 1, pp. 75-86. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00004-998-0006-0]

6. Salama, A. Spatial Design Education: New Directions for Pedagogy in Architecture and Beyond; Routledge: London, UK, 2016.

7. Carpenter, W.; Setiawan, A.; Welty, C. Digital Fabrication and the Design Build Studio; Taylor & Francis: Oxford, UK, 2023.

8. Leathem, T.; Hillesheim, C.; Coley, A.; McGregor, S. Student and teacher perspectives on a multi-disciplinary collaborative pedagogy in architecture and construction. High. Educ. Ski. Work-Based Learn.; 2019; 9, pp. 121-132. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/HESWBL-03-2018-0026]

9. Oxman, R. Digital architecture as a challenge for design pedagogy: Theory, knowledge, models and medium. Des. Stud.; 2008; 29, pp. 99-120. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2007.12.003]

10. Kondyli, V.; Bhatt, M.; Hartmann, T. Precedent based design foundations for parametric design: The case of navigation and wayfinding. Adv. Comput. Des.; 2018; 3, pp. 339-366. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.12989/ACD.2018.3.4.339]

11. Schultz, C.; Bhatt, M.; Borrmann, A. Bridging qualitative spatial constraints and feature-based parametric modelling: Expressing visibility and movement constraints. Adv. Eng. Inform.; 2017; 31, pp. 2-17. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2015.10.004]

12. Terzidis, K. Expressive Form: A Conceptual Approach to Computational Design; Routledge: London, UK, 2004.

13. Hill, L.B. Illusions of rationality confound creative potential. Intercult. Commun. Stud.; 2006; 15, 77.

14. Koch, A.; Schwennsen, K.; Dutton, T.A.; Smith, D. A Report of The AIAS Studio Culture Task Force The Redesign of Studio Culture; The American Institute of Architecture Students: Washington, DC, USA, 2002.

15. Akin, Ö. Case-based instruction strategies in architecture. Des. Stud.; 2002; 23, pp. 407-431. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(01)00046-1]

16. Bashier, F. Reflections on architectural design education: The return of rationalism in the studio. Front. Archit. Res.; 2014; 3, pp. 424-430. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2014.08.004]

17. Plowright, P. Revealing Architectural Design: Methods, Frameworks and Tools; Routledge: London, UK, 2014.

18. Davis, H. Individual Houses in Groups: The Pattern Language in a Teaching Studio. J. Archit. Educ.; 1983; 36, pp. 14-19. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10464883.1983.10758314]

19. Gyulai, L.; Katona, V. A methodological overview of parametricism: Lessons from a case study. Symmetry Cult. Sci.; 2020; 31, pp. 365-381.

20. Woodbury, R. Elements of Parametric Design; Taylor and Francis: Oxford, UK, 2010.

21. Chien, S.F.; Su, H.P.; Huang, Y.W. PARADE: A pattern-based knowledge repository for parametric designs. Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Computer-Aided Architectural Design Research in Asia: Emerging Experiences in the Past, Present and Future of Digital Architecture, CAADRIA; Daegu, Republic of Korea, 20–23 May 2015; pp. 375-384.

22. Eastman, C.; Teicholz, P.; Sacks, R. BIM Handbook: A Guide to Building Information Modeling for Owners, Managers, Designers, Engineers and Contractors; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2008.

23. Clayton, M.J. Using BIM to aid diagrammatic reasoning about architectural aesthetic concepts. Proceedings of the Design Computing and Cognition DCC’12; Station, TX, USA, 7–9 June 2012.

24. Alassaf, N.; Clayton, M. The use of diagrammatic reasoning to aid conceptual design in building information modeling (BIM). Towards a New, Configurable Architecture, Proceedings of the 39th eCAADe Conference, Novi Sad, Serbia, 8–10 September 2021; eCAADe: Brussels, Belgium, 2021; pp. 39-48.

25. Knight, T. Languages of designs: From known to new. Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des.; 1981; 8, pp. 213-238. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1068/b080213]

26. Flemming, U. Syntactic Structures in Architecture: Teaching Composition with Computer Assistance. The Electronic Design Studio: Architectural Knowledge and Media in the Computer Era; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1990; pp. 31-48.

27. Knight, T. Transformations in Design: A Formal Approach to Stylistic Change and Innovation in the Visual Arts; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1995.

28. Carrara, G.; Kalay, Y.E.; Novembri, G. Knowledge-based computational support for architectural design. Autom. Constr.; 1994; 3, pp. 157-175. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0926-5805(94)90017-5]

29. Schön, D.A. The Design Studio: An Exploration of Its Traditions and Potentials; RIBA Publications for RIBA Building Industry Trust: Portland, OR, USA, 1985.

30. McAllister, K. The design process-making it relevant for students. Archnet-IJAR Int. J. Archit. Res.; 2010; 4, 76.

31. Kane, A.; Szalapaj, P. Teaching Design By Analysis of Precedents. Proceedings of the eCAADe Conference; Barcelona, Spain, 12–14 November 1992; pp. 477-496.

32. Eilouti, B.H. Design knowledge recycling using precedent-based analysis and synthesis models. Des. Stud.; 2009; 30, pp. 340-368. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2009.03.001]

33. Clark, R.H.; Pause, M. Precedents in Architecture: Analytic Diagrams, Formative Ideas, and Partis; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2012.

34. Baker, G. Design Strategies in Architecture: An Approach to the Analysis Of form; Taylor & Francis: Oxford, UK, 2003.

35. Piekarski, M.; Filipowski, S. Flexible Shaping Architectural Forms Using Reciprocal Structures. Procedia Eng.; 2016; 161, pp. 1452-1457. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2016.08.609]

36. Casakin, H. Metaphors in the design studio: Implications for education. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education; Delft, The Netherlands, 2–3 September 2004; pp. 265-273.

37. Kühn, C.; Herzog, M. Modelling the representation of architectural design cases. Autom. Constr.; 1993; 2, pp. 1-10. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0926-5805(93)90030-2]

38. Grover, R.; Emmitt, S.; Copping, A. The typological learning framework: The application of structured precedent design knowledge in the architectural design studio. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ.; 2018; 28, pp. 1019-1038. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10798-017-9421-4]

39. Dogan, F.; Nersessian, N.J. Generic abstraction in design creativity: The case of Staatsgalerie by James Stirling. Des. Stud.; 2010; 31, pp. 207-236. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2009.12.004]

40. Anderson, M.; McCartney, R. Diagrammatic reasoning and cases. Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence; Portland, Oregon, 4–8 August 1996; pp. 1004-1009.

41. Do, E.Y.-L.; Gross, M.D. Reasoning about cases with diagrams. Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 3rd Congress on Computing in Civil Engineering; Anaheim, CA, USA, 17–19 June 1996; pp. 314-320.

42. Wing, J.M. Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci.; 2008; 366, pp. 3717-3725. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2008.0118] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18672462]

43. Karadağ, D.; Tuker, C. A proposal for a computational design and ecology based approach to architectural design studio. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ.; 2022; 32, pp. 507-532. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09594-x]

44. Hijón-Neira, R.; Pizarro, C.; French, J.; Palacios-Alonso, D.; Çoban, E. Computational Thinking Measurement of CS University Students. Appl. Sci.; 2024; 14, 5261. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/app14125261]

45. Wang, D.; Luo, L.; Luo, J.; Lin, S.; Ren, G. Developing Computational Thinking: Design-Based Learning and Interdisciplinary Activity Design. Appl. Sci.; 2022; 12, 11033. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/app122111033]

46. Mäkelä, T.; Fenyvesi, K.; Kankaanranta, M.; Pnevmatikos, D.; Christodoulou, P. Co-designing a pedagogical framework and principles for a hybrid STEM learning environment design. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev.; 2022; 70, pp. 1329-1357. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11423-022-10114-y] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35601890]

47. Miodragovic Vella, I.; Markovic, S. Topological Interlocking Assembly: Introduction to Computational Architecture. Appl. Sci.; 2024; 14, 6409. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/app14156409]

48. Iordanova, I. Teaching digital design exploration: Form follows…. Int. J. Archit. Comput.; 2007; 5, pp. 685-702. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1260/147807707783600807]

49. Gross, M.D.; Ervin, S.M.; Anderson, J.A.; Fleisher, A. Constraints: Knowledge representation in design. Des. Stud.; 1988; 9, pp. 133-143. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0142-694X(88)90042-7]

50. Kalay, Y.; Swerdloff, L.; Majkowski, B. Process and knowledge in design computation. J. Archit. Educ.; 1990; 43, pp. 47-53. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10464883.1990.10758560]

51. Egan, P.; Cagan, J. Human and Computational Approaches for Design Problem-Solving. Experimental Design Research: Approaches, Perspectives, Applications; Cash, P.; Stanković, T.; Štorga, M. Springer International Publishing: Cham, Swtizerland, 2016; pp. 187-205.

52. Ostrowska-Wawryniuk, K.; Strzała, M.; Słyk, J. Form Follows Parameter: Algorithmic-Thinking-Oriented Course for Early-stage Architectural Education. Nexus Netw. J.; 2022; 24, pp. 503-522. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00004-022-00603-1]

53. Mitchell, W. Formal representations: A foundation for computer-aided architectural design. Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des.; 1986; 13, pp. 133-162. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1068/b130133]

54. Knight, T. Applications in architectural design, and education and practice. Proceedings of the NSF/MIT Workshop on Shape Computation; Cambridge, MA, USA, 25–26 April 1999.

55. Oxman, R.; Oxman, R. The computability of architectural knowledge. The Electronic Design Studio: Architectural Knowledge and Media in the Computer Era; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1990; pp. 171-187.

56. Stiny, G.; Mitchell, W.J. The palladian grammar. Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des.; 1978; 5, pp. 5-18. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1068/b050005]

57. Koning, H.; Eizenberg, J. The language of the prairie: Frank Lloyd Wright’s prairie houses. Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des.; 1981; 8, pp. 295-323. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1068/b080295]

58. Singh, V.; Gu, N. Towards an integrated generative design framework. Des. Stud.; 2012; 33, pp. 185-207. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.06.001]

59. Heylighen, A.; Neuckermans, H. A case base of Case-Based Design tools for architecture. Comput. Aided Des.; 2001; 33, pp. 1111-1122. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0010-4485(01)00055-0]

60. Watson, I.; Perera, S. Case-based design: A review and analysis of building design applications. AI EDAM; 1997; 11, pp. 59-87. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0890060400001840]

61. Wills, L.M.; Kolodner, J.L. Towards more creative case-based design systems. Proceedings of the AAAI 1994; Seattle, DC, USA, 31 July–4 August 1994; pp. 50-55.

62. Heylighen, A.; Verstijnen, I.M. Exposure to examples: Exploring Case-Based Design in architectural education. Artificial Intelligence in Design’00; Gero, J.S. Kluwer Academic: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2000; pp. 413-432.

63. Caetano, I.; Leitão, A. Architecture meets computation: An overview of the evolution of computational design approaches in architecture. Archit. Sci. Rev.; 2020; 63, pp. 165-174. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2019.1680524]

64. Qian, C.Z. Design Patterns: Augmenting Design Practice in Parametric CAD Systems. Ph.D. Thesis; Simon Fraser University: Burnaby, BC, Canada, 2009.

65. Qian, C.Z.; Chen, V.Y.; Woodbury, R. Participant Observation Can Discover Design Patterns in Parametric Modeling. Expanding Bodies: Art, Cities, Environment, Proceedings of the ACADIA 2007 Conference, Halifax, NS, Canada, 1–7 October 2007; Riverside Architectural Press: Cambridge, ON, Canada, 2007; pp. 230-241.

66. Woodbury, R.; Aish, R.; Kilian, A. Some patterns for parametric modeling. Expanding Bodies: Art, Cities, Environment, Proceedings of the ACADIA 2007 Conference, Halifax, NS, Canada, 1–7 October 2007; Riverside Architectural Press: Cambridge, ON, Canada, 2007; pp. 222-229.

67. Turk, Ž. Reflections on Three Decades of Building Information Modeling. Buildings; 2025; 15, 231. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/buildings15020231]

68. Borkowski, A.S. Evolution of BIM: Epistemology, genesis and division into periods. J. Inf. Technol. Constr.; 2023; 28, pp. 646-661. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.36680/j.itcon.2023.034]

69. Ceylan, S.; Şahin, P.; Seçmen, S.; Somer, M.E.; Süher, H.K. The contribution of digital tools to architectural design studio: A case study. Ain Shams Eng. J.; 2024; 15, 102795. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2024.102795]

70. Younis, S.B.; Al-Kazzaz, D.A. Scenarios of Building Information Modelling-Based Design Education in Architecture Schools. Int. J. Eng. Pedagog.; 2023; 13, pp. 51-66. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3991/ijep.v13i8.41303]

71. Akin, Ö. Necessity of cognitive modeling in BIM’s future. Building Information Modeling: BIM in Current Future Practice; Kensek, K.; Noble, D. John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2015; pp. 17-27.

72. Holzer, D. BIM’s seven deadly sins. Int. J. Archit. Comput.; 2011; 9, pp. 463-480. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1260/1478-0771.9.4.463]

73. Michalatos, P. Design Signals: The Role of Software Architecture and Paradigms in Design Thinking and Practice. Archit. Des.; 2016; 86, pp. 108-115. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ad.2096]

74. Shahverdi Amir, F.; Mostafavi, F.; Roodkoly Sogand, H.; Zomorodian Zahra, S.; Homayouni, H. Developing a Pedagogical Framework for an Integrated and BIM-Based High-Performance Design Studio: Experimental Case Study. J. Archit. Eng.; 2024; 30, 05024001. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1061/JAEIED.AEENG-1550]

75. Laovisutthichai, V.; Srihiran, K.; Lu, W. Towards greater integration of building information modeling in the architectural design curriculum: A longitudinal case study. Ind. High. Educ.; 2023; 37, pp. 265-278. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/09504222221120165]

76. Girginkaya Akdag, S.; Maqsood, U. A roadmap for BIM adoption and implementation in developing countries: The Pakistan case. Archnet-IJAR Int. J. Archit. Res.; 2020; 14, pp. 112-132. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ARCH-04-2019-0081]

77. Farrokhi, F.; Mahmoudi-Hamidabad, A. Rethinking Convenience Sampling: Defining Quality Criteria. Theory Pract. Lang. Stud.; 2012; 2, pp. 784-792. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4304/tpls.2.4.784-792]

78. Kalay, Y. The computability of architectural design. Proceedings of the 5th Jerusalem Conference on Information Technology, 1990. ‘Next Decade in Information Technology’; Jerusalem, Israel, 22–25 October 1990; pp. 372-378.

79. Colquhoun, A. Modern Architecture; OUP Oxford: Oxford, UK, 2002.

80. Frampton, K. Frontality vs. Rotation. Five Architects: Eisenman, Graves, Gwathmey, Hejduk, Meier; Eisenman, P. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1975.

81. Cohen, L.; Manion, L.; Morrison, K. Research Methods in Education; Routledge: London, UK, 2002.

82. Randall, D.M.; Fernandes, M.F. The social desirability response bias in ethics research. J. Bus. Ethics; 1991; 10, pp. 805-817. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00383696]

83. Bandura, A. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol. Rev.; 1977; 84, pp. 191-215. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191]

84. Meek, G.E.; Ozgur, C.; Dunning, K. Comparison of the t vs. Wilcoxon signed-rank test for Likert scale data and small samples. J. Mod. Appl. Stat. Methods; 2007; 6, 10. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.22237/jmasm/1177992540]

85. Boud, D.; Falchikov, N. Quantitative studies of student self-assessment in higher education: A critical analysis of findings. High. Educ.; 1989; 18, pp. 529-549. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00138746]

86. Drexler, A.; Rowe, C. Five Architects: Eisenman, Graves, Gwathmey, Hejduk, Meier; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1975.

87. Arnell, P.; Bickford, T. Charles Gwathmey and Robert Siegel: Buildings and Projects 1964–1984; Harper & Row: Manhattan, NY, USA, 1985.