Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorDogan, Fehmi
dc.contributor.authorTaneri, Batuhan
dc.contributor.authorErbil, Livanur
dc.date.accessioned2020-07-25T22:12:44Z
dc.date.available2020-07-25T22:12:44Z
dc.date.issued2019
dc.identifier.issn0890-0604
dc.identifier.issn1469-1760
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1017/S0890060418000057
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11147/9509
dc.descriptionWOS: 000458576500006en_US
dc.description.abstractThis study investigates the use of similarities in the form of analogy, metaphor, and simile by students and reviewers in an undergraduate architectural design review. In contrast to studies conducted in vitro settings, this study emphasizes the importance of studying analogies, metaphors, and similes in a natural setting. All similarity relationships were coded according to their type, the level of expertise, range, frequency, goal, value judgment, and depth. The results indicate that analogies, metaphors, and similes were used spontaneously and without any difficulty by both reviewers and students. Reviewers, however, were almost twice as likely to evoke similarities. Metaphor was the most frequently used similarity relationship among the three. It was found that there was a significant relationship between the level of expertise and type of similarity, with students more likely to use analogies and less likely to use similes. It was also found that goal is the most important factor, with a significant relation to all other variables, and that embodiment is often invoked in both students' and reviewers' metaphors. We conclude that design education should take full advantage of students' natural ability to benefit from similarity relationships.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherCambridge Univ Pressen_US
dc.relation.isversionof10.1017/S0890060418000057en_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectAnalogyen_US
dc.subjectdesign cognitionen_US
dc.subjectdesign educationen_US
dc.subjectmetaphorsen_US
dc.subjectsimilesen_US
dc.titleUse of analogies, metaphors, and similes by students and reviewers at an undergraduate architectural design reviewen_US
dc.typereviewen_US
dc.relation.journalAi Edam-Artificial Intelligence For Engineering Design Analysis And Manufacturingen_US
dc.contributor.departmentIzmir Institute of Technologyen_US
dc.identifier.volume33en_US
dc.identifier.issue1en_US
dc.identifier.startpage69en_US
dc.identifier.endpage84en_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryDiğeren_US
dc.cont.department-temp[Dogan, Fehmi; Taneri, Batuhan; Erbil, Livanur] Izmir Inst Technol, Fac Architecture, TR-35430 Izmir, Turkeyen_US


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record