Integrating performance-based design in

beginning interior design education: an

interactive dialog between the built
environment and its context
Qun Zuo, Faculty of Interior Design, Department of Human Environmental
Studies, USA
Wesley Leonard, College of Health Professions, USA
Eileen E. MaloneBeach, Department of Human Environmental Studies,
Central Michigan University, Mount Pleasant, MI 48859, USA

This paper presents a new paradigm in interior design education in which

building performance simulation was employed for decision making and design
generation. Digital technology was intermixed with conventional paper-based
media in the design process to explore formal, spatial and passive solar energy
solutions. The intention of the study was to re-discover the value of computers in
assisting design thinking and improving effective learning. The results indicated
the Performance-Based Design approach resulted in an early awareness of
sustainable energy for beginning interior design students. Further, it enhanced
understanding of the mutual relationship between interior and exterior and
between the built and natural environment. This paper acknowledged the
achievements as well as limitations and future directions for the integration of
Performance-Based Design into interior design curriculum.
Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: performance-based design, interior design, design education,

computer aided design, design process

E
merging interest in sustainable built environment has been changing
the way that architects, interior designers, and engineers design build-
ings. Building performance is no longer a post-evaluation after the de-
sign is ‘complete’ (Burger, 2008). Instead, its criteria are digitally simulated
and analyzed during the design process and are used as guiding design princi-
ples against which building form is evaluated and modified (Fasoulaki, 2008).
This integrated approach has altered the traditional process of conventional
design and has the potential to affect building energy use, improve spatial
experience, and influence aesthetic decisions (Burger, 2008).

Corresponding author:
Qun Zuo A new framework for design pedagogy must be responsive to the emerging ap-
juliezuo@hotmail. proach in which performance-based design (PBD) is integrated as an effective
com process for design decision making. Various educational agendas have been
www.elsevier.com/locate/destud
0142-694X $ - see front matter Design Studies 31 (2010) 268e287
doi:10.1016/j.destud.2009.12.002 268
Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 developed in architecture and engineering disciplines, especially in many grad-
uate programs, to integrate digital building performance tools into the curric-
ula (Oxman, 2008). However, the teaching of interior design as a discipline has
lagged in this effort. The paradigm of design in many studios is still strongly
predicated upon visual reasoning solely (Oxman, 2008). Thus, some aspects
of sustainability, such as passive solar energy use, cannot be taught in-depth.
The old ways of delivering digital techniques emphasize the representation
aspects of Computer Aided Design (CAD) (Basa & Senyapth, 2005x ), but
lack exposure to its simulation and analytical capabilities for assisting design
generation. It is essential to re-orient our approach within interior design
education, especially in the undergraduate curriculum, to open up new
territories for formal, spatial and energy use exploration.

This paper proposes a new teaching pedagogy in beginning interior design

courses, which employs performance simulation and analysis as an impetus
for design decision making. A residential design project with the scope of
achieving optimal harmony between building form and its natural environ-
ment was carried out in a studio and an advanced CAD course for study.
The pedagogy was different from the old delivery in five aspects: first, teaching
content: sustainable design principles of using passive solar energy was inte-
grated to better understand the mutual relationship between the interior and
exterior conditions of buildings, and between the built and natural environ-
ments; second, design tools: digital and non-digital media were intermixed
in the design process; third, design process: building performance analysis
was applied in the early design stage; fourth, teaching pedagogy: a more active
teaching and learning mode was realized through the use of digital simulation
tools; and fifth, class organization: the studio and the CAD course worked
jointly on the project by sharing the same site and design resources. This paper
reviews the theoretical framework and precedence of the study before outlin-
ing the implementation, assessment and findings. Limitations and future direc-
tions are also described in order to improve this prototype for better
application in interior design education.

1 Developments in design practice

A number of recent developments in design practice now impinge directly
upon education.

1.1 Sustainability
The exploration of the built environment in relation to its social and natural
context has been a continuous theme in the history of architecture and interior
design. Contemporary design theory promotes an environmentally sustainable
approach or Green Design to address the problems in which issues of the en-
vironment are interrelated with human development and progress. The 1987
conference of the World Commission on Environment and Development
(WCED) defined such an approach as ‘meeting the needs of the present

An interactive dialog between the built environment and its context 269
 without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs’. In the last decade, developing more environmentally benign products,
processes and buildings became one of the fastest growing segments of the
building industry (Hendrickson, Conway-Schempf, Lave, & McMichael,
2000). The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green
Building Rating System includes five environmental topics: site, water, energy,
materials and resources, and indoor environmental quality. While all of these
aspects are critical, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
identified energy as the most important component (Kibert, 2005).

The teaching and practice of sustainability is not a trend but has become a necessity
in the field of design. Many successful academic addenda have integrated sustain-
able content into higher level undergraduate courses in interior design education.
Numerous good examples of course activities can be found at: http://www.ide-
c.org/greendesign/home.html. However, sustainable materials and indoor envi-
ronmental quality have been emphasized, whereas sustainable energy has been
given much less attention within the profession (Kang, Kang, & Barnes, 2009).

1.2 Whole-building design

To better address the demand of sustainability, a Whole-Building Design ap-
proach emerged with the goal of creating high-performance buildings which
can reduce energy demands and minimize environmental impact. Users’ inter-
actions with the built environment are defined as a set of measurable building
performance criteria, which can be categorized at three levels: 1) health, safety
and security performance; 2) functional, efficiency and work performance; 3)
psychological, social, cultural and aesthetic performance (Preiser & Vischer,
2004). The Whole-Building Design approach differs from the traditional de-
sign and construction method, as the physical aspects of building performance,
such as siting and orientation, building form and structure, the mechanical sys-
tem, interior space planning, material and furnishing selections, lighting, along
with other building systems and components are integrated as a whole in the
design process. Such a holistic design approach depends on the collaboration
and on-going communication among the project team members, including ar-
chitects, engineers, owners, contractors, interior designers and energy special-
ists. To optimize the overall building performance, the team must make
decisions together in all stages of a project, starting with establishing perfor-
mance goals in the early design phases (Whole building design, 2009). Thus,
an effective approach to simulate and evaluate building assets in an integrated
view is critical to the Whole-Building Design approach.

Interior designers should no longer receive a plan from the architect to per-
form space planning, material specification, furniture selection, and code
and regulation applications. Instead, they are important co-players in the
Whole-Building Design process and should be contracted at the onset of a pro-
ject (Frances, 2009). Their responsibilities within the team include but are not

270 Design Studies Vol 31 No. 3 May 2010

 limited to adjusting space planning and furnishing positions according to
HVAC zones, mechanical rooms, equipment, ductwork and piping; selecting
colors, finishes, lamps, and window operation and treatment relative to energy
efficiency; and coordinating interior components to passive solar energy and
other sustainable approaches.

1.3 Performance-based design (PBD)

While the need for creating environmentally attuned buildings is one of the
strongest motivating forces of building performance simulation, the advance-
ment in computational technology offers the tools to maneuver building assets
in the digital domain. From its inception, the idea that computers have the po-
tential to support design activities, two directions of applying computation in
design have been used: one is its visualization and representation aspect, which
includes two-dimensional drafting and three-dimensional visualization of forms
and spaces; the other is its calculation and simulation aspect, which allows quan-
titative or qualitative evaluations of building performance (Fasoulaki, 2008).
The distinction between the two is significant. Computer generated presenta-
tions have been basically founded on imitating paper-based design, while digital
calculation and simulation have introduced a new body of knowledge, theories,
methods, and processes (Oxman, 2008). Since the late 1960s and early 1970s,
a variety of pioneering computational generation and simulation models have
been developed or tested. One such model, the performance model (Oxman,
2008) or performance-based design (PBD), utilizes optimization and simulation
algorithms to evaluate building form against performance criteria (Fasoulaki,
2008). Computational tools and methods made it possible to reveal an inte-
grated view of the contemporary built environment (Brahme, Mahdavi, Lam,
& Gupta, 2001). It enabled the exploration of complex forms, comprehensive
fabrication and manufacturing processes, and the optimization of the building
components and systems (Kolarevis & Malkawi, 2005).

Currently, architects and engineers have been at the forefront of PBD develop-
ment. As a contrast, there has been little effort to employ PBD in interior design
practice. Most teaching contents on sustainability have been tailored for
seminars or studios using conventional media in interior design education
(Bourque, DuvalleHarden, Fowles, Ginthner, Jones, & Truelove, 2003).
Building performance simulation has been either missed, or if included, not
applied at its full capacity for decision making as is the case for Kim’s (2008)
approaches to teaching sustainability. In order to coordinate the interior com-
ponents for optimized sustainable solutions, interior designers should be ac-
tively involved in the Whole-Building Design practice and assume
a collaborative role in the integration of PBD in the design process.

1.4 Transforming design tools and process

The fact that the advancement of digital technologies has been consistently
changing the design process does not expel conventional hand skills from

An interactive dialog between the built environment and its context 271
 design practice and education. On the contrary, designers have recognized the
complementary nature of each medium and recommended a ‘smarter’ practice
of intermixing digital and non-digital tools (Mueller, 2006).

The activities of design thinking strongly based on visual reasoning through

paper-based media, such as sketching and physical modeling, are referred to
as ‘reflection in action’ (Schön & Wiggins, 1988). Architects and designers
have been depending on paper-based methods for conceptual and explorative
processes since the Renaissance. Until recently, design professionals were still
of firm belief that hand techniques are faster and more intuitive in the early
design phases, where information is uncertain and imprecise (Basa &
Senyapth, 2005 x ). Numerous studies have indicated that this paradigm has
been applied universally in architectural and design education as a dominant
model for ages (Oxman, 2008).

Often criticized as an imitation of paper-based media, computer aided presen-

tations have been identified with problems of loss of identity, lack of authen-
ticity and demands of proficiency (Basa & Senyapth, 2005x ). However, its
efficiency in both time and cost for design documentation and visualization
has made it well adapted into design practice and education. More promis-
ingly, the fast development of PBD has altered the traditional design process
and sequence by enhancing design solutions with building performative eval-
uation and verification (Oxman, 2008). The amount of data and the speed that
computers can handle far exceeds the capabilities of hand techniques. The
more comprehensive the building condition and its context, the stronger the
advantages of a PBD approach.

Researchers predict that the interplay of digital and non-digital methods will
be a persistent feature of design activities for the perceivable future (Mueller,
2006). The theory is that the intermixed application of real and virtual objects
can be a prime source of exchanging information, enhancing understanding,
and inspiring new ideas (Dorta, Pérez, & Lesage, 2008). The pioneering mas-
terpieces by Frank O. Gehry, Zaha Hadid, Peter Eisenman and many more ar-
chitects are living examples of the integrated approach at work. Similar
investigations have taken place at MIT, Carnegie Mellon, UCLA, Harvard,
Pennsylvania State University, University of Michigan, and elsewhere around
the world (Oxman, 2008).

These recent developments and emerging tools in design practice pose new de-
mands on educators to re-investigate the value of digital technologies in con-
temporary interior design education. Building performance simulation, in
particular, has offered interior designers an opportunity and challenge in their
sustainable practice. This research was an effort to respond to the demand of
integrating PBD into interior design curriculum. The study focused on spatial
relationship, orientation, and daylighting simulation, since these aspects are

272 Design Studies Vol 31 No. 3 May 2010

 fundamental for beginning interior design students. The following questions
are examined in this paper: Does the nature of PBD affect the design process
to the extent that interior design education must accommodate it as a new pro-
cess and method in the curriculum? How effective are the PBD versus hand
skills in facilitating the student learning experience? Does PBD effectively
impact student’s design outcomes and performance?

2 Method
The study was carried out on a dwelling design project in two interior design
courses through two consecutive semesters in 2008 2009. One course was the
second interior design studio in the program which focused on residential
design. The other, advanced CAD, taught three-dimensional modeling and
visualization techniques. Each semester, the two courses paired up for two
sessions. Fifty-five students enrolled in the four sessions and 51 completed
the survey, which included 10 in session 1(studio, fall semester), 16 in session
2 (CAD course, fall semester), 16 in session 3 (studio, spring semester), and 9 in
session 4 (CAD course, spring semester). All students were sophomore interior
design majors. They shared the same residential site and were required to
employ both hand and computer techniques for design generation. A panel
of four evaluators was invited to jury students’ final presentations in all four
sessions. All jury members have had teaching and/or industrial experience in
architecture and/or interior design. Three out of four were instructors in the
program and had been invited to critique students’ work of the same project
in previous semesters. Half of the jury members had working knowledge of
at least one of the computer programs used in the project.

The study investigated the integration of PBD in the design process in interior
design education. It differs from the old delivery mode in five key aspects: the
establishment of new design knowledge as the core content, the integration of
digital performance simulation as an analysis tool, the changes in design
process as building performance was involved in the early design stage, the
renovation on teaching pedagogy, and the new way of organizing classes.

2.1 New design knowledge

The given site of the design project was a waterfront dwelling village located
on the east shore of a lake in central Michigan in the U.S. The topography
was a hillside sloping downhill toward the lake. Design problems included
dwelling form generation, interior space planning, landscape design, as well
as the considerations to neighborhood context, topography, climate, solar ori-
entation, prevailing winds and views. Among the many factors that students
must coordinate, daylighting, spatial relationship and views were selected
for performance simulation and were employed as the guiding design princi-
ples for form generation. Criteria such as daylight distribution, orientation,
glazing to wall ratio, window placement and window treatment were used to
maximize natural lighting and reduce glare. The intentions of this project

An interactive dialog between the built environment and its context 273
 were to deliver new design knowledge to beginning interior design students by
1) introducing passive solar energy as one of the sustainable design principles;
2) integrating PBD to enhance their understanding to the mutual relationship
between the interior and exterior conditions, and between the built and natural
environments.

2.2 New design media

In order to evaluate whether the use of PBD versus conventional paper-based
media would benefit student learning and outcomes, both hand and digital
techniques were employed in the design process. Besides the typical hand
sketching and physical modeling supplies, two software programs were used
for digital modeling, rendering, and simulation:

SketchUp (http://sketchup.google.com) was selected for digital modeling due

to its intuitive and efficient nature. Novice users can learn to use SketchUp
quickly. Compared to traditional CAD modeling software, its interface and
operation are much simpler and more straightforward, which speeds up the
modeling process. Thus, many users claim SketchUp is analogous to physical
modeling and consider it as an excellent tool for exploring schematic design
ideas. In addition, SketchUp files can be exported to traditional CAD pro-
grams for final documentation, photorealistic rendering, and performative
simulation. All participants in this study had had working knowledge of the
program prior to the project.

Autodesk VIZ (a program similar to Autodesk 3ds Max), which is an ad-

vanced 3D modeling program, was used to perform computer rendering and
the simulation of spatial relationship, daylighting and views. It was the major
software being taught in the advanced CAD course. Students were able to set
up multiple cameras in and outside of each dwelling in the virtual domain to
explore what was visible from where. Lighting simulation and analyses were
presented in both vivid photorealistic quality and pseudo color mode, which
offered direct visual information to students. Participants in the project either
had had experience with VIZ or were in the learning process, but none had
used the daylight simulation feature prior to the project. Since colors, mate-
rials, and furnishing details could distract viewers’ attention and dramatically
slow computer generation and calculation, a monochromatic color scheme
(white) and generic furniture were used during daylighting simulation and
analysis in the early design stages. Nevertheless, photorealistic quality render-
ings were required as the final products in the CAD course.

2.3 Changes in design processes

The old design workflow of the studio had followed the ‘prescriptive’ model: the
abstract hand sketches and the malleable physical study models were used to
explore design ideas in the initial conceptualization phase; then they were trans-
formed into a set of digital plans, sections and elevations in the design

274 Design Studies Vol 31 No. 3 May 2010

Figure 1 Conventional inte-
rior design studio work flow
derived from Mueller’s
(2006) Design Work Flow

development stage; in the end, the final design solutions were executed as accu-
rate CAD documents and precise physical models for presentation purposes.
Even in a more advanced digital application in higher level interior design stu-
dios, orthographic drawings were often used to generate three-dimensional
computer models which could either support plans, sections and elevations
or offer digital perspective imaging as manual renderings do. The digital data
merely recorded the design changes and final results. There were no design
activities immediately directed at the digital media. The workflow is illustrated
in Figure 1, which is derived from Mueller’s (2006) Design Work Flow.

The disconnection between design thinking and digital tools was also true in
the past CAD classes. Students were provided with a set of standard floor plans
and elevations, from which they were supposed to reconstruct the building on
the monitor in order to practice computer techniques. Students tended to get
bored by the tedious procedures. Some students were not able to see the value
of daylight simulation, since a few standard fake light objects could make the
imaging look beautiful and refined with less effort. Such a teaching approach
failed to reveal the full capacity of digital technologies as design tools.

This study tried to create a much more active and engaging learning mode.
Participants worked interactively on paper, with physical and virtual models,
through which to re-discover the value of digital three-dimensional data for
decision making. The assistance that digital technologies provided was two
fold, in both formal and spatial exploration, which was visual reasoning,
and building performance simulation, which was algorithm based. This added
a dynamic loop in the early design process of evaluating building performative
factors against building form, which could augment the diversity and depth of
design thinking. The new workflow is shown in Figure 2, which is developed
from Mueller’s (2006) Design Work Flow.

2.4 New teaching pedagogy

In the previous studio, one of the major objectives was to convey design inten-
tion, especially formal and spatial generation, through visual reasoning. As
a result, the use of paper-based media was emphasized for its effectiveness
to explore fundamental design principles for beginning designs students.
However, sketches and scaled mockups were challenged to present spatial

An interactive dialog between the built environment and its context 275
Figure 2 Performance-based
Design Work Flow developed
from Mueller’s (2006)
Design Work Flow

relationship at various scales and viewing angles. Although full-scale physical

models could solve the problem, it was not practical or meaningful for con-
structing a dwelling site at its real size. The teaching and learning experience
could be more challenging when daylighting was involved as one of the key
factors for decision making. Visualizing the solution through physical models
and manual calculation would largely depend on the student’s ability to imag-
ine both his/her own design outcome and the instructor’s feedback. It was ex-
tremely difficult to get objectively reliable perceptions in the communication
between the student and the instructor (Feng, 2003).

The integration of PBD offered an opportunity to overcome the limitations of

conventional design media as well as to fill the gaps in studio communication.
The teaching and learning experience was improved by a test-and-run
approach. The same was true in the CAD course in which students were
able to apply new computer techniques directly to assist design decision
making in an on-going project.

The role of the instructors was even more critical in the new approach. They
not only worked on a one-to-one basis with each student for design issues
but also technically supported computer application techniques and opera-
tional questions. In addition, they monitored the construction and updating
of the dwelling village in both physical and digital model formats, which re-
quired fluency in both digital and non-digital tools. Their responsibilities
shifted from tutors or supervisors to co-explorers or project directors. More
active and experiential learning activities were a strong contrast to the original
passive teaching mode.

2.5 Changes in class organization

This study tied the studio and the CAD sessions in each semester into one
through sharing the same project site and design resources. The studio sessions
had 6 weeks, 5 contact hours per week, and a total of 30 contact hours; the
CAD sessions had 7 weeks, 4 contact hours per week, and a total of 28 contact
hours. The CAD sessions were started one week earlier in order to run parallel

276 Design Studies Vol 31 No. 3 May 2010

 with the studio sessions in the design development process. The schedule of
each course is attached in Appendix A.

Each student was assigned a slot in the dwelling village by lottery. Both a phys-
ical and a digital model of the residential site were available to two sessions.
Students in the studio session launched their design with physical study
models, which then was converted into SketchUp models. In the mean time,
students in the CAD session began their design directly in SketchUp, from
which, floor plans and elevations were plotted as hard copies and then
attached to foam core to make the physical study models.

Instructors evaluated the physical and the SketchUp study models and offered
feedback to students for design revisions. Afterwards, the schematic designs
were imported into the digital site. Spatial and daylighting simulation and
analysis were executed in VIZ. Further revisions and alternative solutions
were tested and the results were available almost immediately on the com-
puters. For example, the amount of daylight entered a space and the view to
the exterior changed right away if the shape, location, or dimension of a win-
dow was modified (Figure 3). The VIZ site model was updated promptly to
keep everyone on the same page.

Students presented their work to the panel of juries in both physical and digital
formats, which were set up side-by-side for the convenience of the jury and au-
dience. Each student was required to produce a walk-through animation in the
format of monochromatic color scheme and generic furnishing and to use it as
evidence for explaining the design generation. The major differences of the pre-
sentation materials between each paired sessions were 1) the scaled mockups
from the studio session were of fine quality, whereas the ones from the
CAD session were less detailed since they were constructed by exporting the
digital plans and elevations as templates which then were attached to foam
core boards; 2) Students in the CAD session were also asked to turn in photo-
realistic renderings as the proof of mastering advanced computer presentation
techniques (Figure 4).

Figure 3 Students explored interior spatial and daylighting simulation using Autodesk VIZ (a, b) Changing window configurations with generic
furniture and materials; (c) Final solution with photorealistic interior composition, colors, and materials

An interactive dialog between the built environment and its context 277
Figure 4 Students practiced photorealistic rendering techniques using Autodesk VIZ (a, b) Exploring day and night light conditions

3 Instruments
To observe the effectiveness of PBD on students’ performance, data was col-
lected on comparison of digital and non-digital media by using four methods:
1) observing students’ work process, 2) having participants complete question-
naires after their final presentation (see Appendix B for the questionnaire), 3)
conducting informal interviews to each participant at the end of the desk
critique each week, and 4) having jury members evaluate students work
(see Appendix C for evaluation criteria).

The questionnaire was inspired by Dorta et al.’s (2008) study on the Hybrid
Ideation Space (HIS) and Day and Rahman’s (2006) study on participatory de-
sign, which either integrated or compared digital technology with analog tools
in design process. The resulting questionnaire asked the participants to evalu-
ate nine dimensions of the visualization and simulation capabilities of both
hand and digital modeling approaches using a 10-point scale, in which 1
was the lowest and 10 was the highest. In addition, open-ended questions
were included to reveal the patterns of students’ learning experience as well
as to suggest directions for future teaching. The evaluation of students’
work by the jury included four dimensions, which ranged from aesthetical,
functional, and environmental to psychological aspects. A 10-point scale
was also used for evaluation, with 1 as the lowest and 10 as the highest.

4 Results
Most participants were able to work easily with both hand and digital tech-
niques. Only one participant experienced difficulty transitioning to a digital
model. For participants in the studio, it took less than one class period to trans-
form the physical study model into a SketchUp model. Many found that
SketchUp was much less forgiving than a physical mockup. Since computer
simulations are more accurate than physical models, almost every participant
identified new problems during the process of digital modeling. Interestingly,

278 Design Studies Vol 31 No. 3 May 2010

Figure 5 Daylight were visualized in both photorealistic and pseudo color formats using Autodesk VIZ (a, b, c and d) Above: Human perception
renderings of the simulated interior daylight conditions for the different times of the day; Below: Pseudo color renderings of the simulated
interior daylight conditions for the different times of the day

the participants in the CAD courses claimed that SketchUp was much less ac-
curate than VIZ. Participants found SketchUp, which is a free consumer tool,
was easier to use for exploring conceptual ideas in 3D, while VIZ, as a complex
professional tool, was more difficult for free form modeling or revisions.

Most of the participants in the studio sessions could more easily visualize is-
sues that the instructors had pointed out in their physical study models after
they saw their work in the digital format. They alternated between physical
and digital models to refine their designs. Quite a few of them requested at least
one extra meeting with the instructors to discuss their design in the virtual
format. In contrast, participants in the CAD classes made almost all revisions
directly on the computer e either in SketchUp or VIZ models. A few partici-
pants claimed that the physical models gave them a more tangible feel for the
volumes and dimensions than the digital models, which were expressed as mi-
nor changes in their design solutions. Overall, students in studio sessions were
more open to modifications than the ones in the CAD sessions. According to
the feedback from participants during their desk critique, the tangible feel of
paper and boards was much less intimidating than the finished quality caused
by the inherent precision and details associated with computers.

All four sessions experienced some difficulty when importing SketchUp

models into VIZ due to compatibility issues between the two programs.
Some participants had difficulty understanding the pseudo color image of
the lighting simulation, which instead of visualizing the lighting condition in

Figure 6 Screen shots of a walk-through animation of a house; lighting condition is changing through the day

An interactive dialog between the built environment and its context 279
Figure 7 Daylight simulation
of the entire village site using
Autodesk VIZ

photorealistic effects, uses a few colors to illustrate the range of light levels
from darkest to brightest. After examining the image for a few minutes, all
were able to ‘read’ and understand it (Figure 5).

In general, most participants agreed that the multi-view (static, walk-through

and panoramic views in and out of each dwelling and fly-through of the entire
site) and daylight simulation capabilities were most helpful in identifying bet-
ter solutions for orientation, building shape, space planning, glazing to wall
ratio and solar shading (Figures 6 and 7). We found students enjoyed interact-
ing with digital media. Almost everyone was adding more and more cameras
to the scenes in VIZ so they could experience the form and space from more
viewing angles, scales, and contexts (Figures 8 and 9).

Figure 8 Multi-views of the

simulation model

280 Design Studies Vol 31 No. 3 May 2010

Figure 9 Multi-views of the simulated space

Two observations from all four sessions are of special note: 1) the participants
confirmed that they used the computer simulation to support their design
thinking and not to create digital representations of what they had designed
through paper-based media; 2) The studio sessions used the CAD software ac-
cording to the workflow for supporting the design process; the CAD sessions
employed digital technologies for both design thinking and final presentation.

Out of 51 participants, only one student decided to work on her design mostly
in paper-based format. This student had very strong hand skills in rendering
and sketching. She was also strong in conceptualization and form generation.
Her work stood out in terms of creativity, formal quality and originality; how-
ever, her solutions for solar control and adherence to building codes were less

Figure 10 Comparing the

effectiveness of physical vs.
digital modeling

An interactive dialog between the built environment and its context 281
 successfully executed when compared to projects that utilized computer mod-
eling. In a way, this student’s design was a perfect counter-example.

4.1 Physical vs. digital media

In terms of the nine-point question related to comparing physical modeling
with digital media, the participants in all four sessions gave high ratings to dig-
ital media (Figure 10). The overall statistical difference was significant. The
difference between each pair of questions was also significant. Participants
gave the highest rating to (q7): ‘Ease of visualizing daylight in and out of
your house’. High ratings were also given to (q8): ‘Ease of manipulating and
modifying your design’. It is worth noting that the difference in scores between
physical and digital tools was very close for (q5): ‘Ease of visualizing the ori-
entation of your house in site’. The logical explanation for this is that partic-
ipants can easily locate their house orientations with an overall sight of the
village site in a physical mockup, even though the digital mockup provides
more viewing angles, which include a bird’s eye view of the whole site and
looking at the neighborhood from any of the houses on the site.

4.2 Open-ended questions

A brief summary of the participants’ feedback to the open-ended questions
(Tables 1 and 2) demonstrates the success of the study in a number of ways.
The positive feedback to the effectiveness and efficiency of the digital tools
rated the highest (99), in which the simulation of daylight, building form, views

Table 1 Advantages and challenges of using physical modeling tools

Respondents

The advantages of using physical modeling identified by participants

Effectiveness & efficiency to assist design thinking 39
1. Gives the opportunity for a hands-on experience trying ideas 11
2. Helps to understand the form and space of your building better 12
3. Helps to see window and door openings and how they relate to each room from the outside 9
4. Tangible; can hold the model and easily move it around as needed 4
Identity of designer 3
5. Ability to add unique or artistic touches 3
Interests & satisfaction of participants 2
6. Finished model is visually appealing; it was amazing and worth all the time 2

The challenges of using physical modeling identified by participants

Effectiveness & efficiency to assist design thinking 29
1. Difficult to make changes or fix mistakes 8
2. Foam core was very hard to work with. Lots of bloody fingers, very stressful on the eyes, 4
and ‘I got sore fingers.’
3. You are limited by your modeling techniques to express ideas 1
4. Less accurate and greater chance of mistakes 6
5. Time consuming 4
6. Very expensive 3
7. Difficult to manipulate or visualize design ideas 2
8. ‘X-acto knives are dangerous!’ 1

282 Design Studies Vol 31 No. 3 May 2010

Table 2 Advantages, challenges, and suggestions of using digital tools

Respondents

The advantages of using digital tools identified by participants

Effectiveness & efficiency to assist design thinking 99
1. Lighting changes are visible; easy to see how orientation impacts the interior and how 17
light interacts with the space
2. Great to identify problems of lighting, window placement, clearances, and shapes 15
3. Digital model was very helpful in seeing the site as a whole and how the neighbors will 12
affect my views
4. Very useful to see and manipulate 3D form (entry, paths through the space, etc.) 10
5. SketchUp is easy to use for space planning and form generation 9
6. VIZ helped to make the project look more realistic 8
7. VIZ can visualize unique walls and details 3
8. Easier to visualize than on paper 5
9. If you can navigate through, it is easier to brain storm and try ideas 1
10. Allowed me to have another medium to express design ideas 2
11. VIZ is a simple program once you learn it 1
12. It can put you in the space 3
13. Switching views is very easy 2
14. More options 2
15. Very detailed 4
16. Quicker 5
Interests & satisfaction of participants 1
17. Lighting design can be very interesting 1

Challenges of using digital tools identified by participants

Effectiveness & efficiency to assist design thinking 59
1. Need to be very knowledgeable of the program to use VIZ to its full advantage; If not 12
familiar with the program, it can be difficult and cause problems; VIZ is too difficult to
learn well in just one semester
2. Overwhelming amount of features and tools to use in VIZ; it’s difficult to express what 8
you imagine in your head
3. Once walls and objects are in place in VIZ, it is difficult to change them unlike drawing 5
by hand
4. Using VIZ is time consuming 6
5. If too much is added in a VIZ scene, it’s hard to quickly move through the space or 4
render the camera views
6. VIZ is sometimes confusing or moves too fast 2
7. VIZ program shut down often 1
8. VIZ is slower on modeling than SketchUp or hand modeling 5
9. It’s much easier to build walls in SketchUp than in VIZ 4
10. SketchUp does not seem as accurate 4
11. The non-realistic appearance of SketchUp can be distracting to the overall aesthetic 3
quality of a building/object
12. Converting models from SketchUp to VIZ was very difficult 5
Identity of designer 1
13. Everyone’s designs were presented in the same ‘format’; difficult to get a personalized 1
design
Suggestions to future use of digital tools 5
1. Increase critique time with students in digital format 5

An interactive dialog between the built environment and its context 283
Figure 11 Students at the final presentation using paper-based media and physical models

and site were indicated as being the most helpful in the design process (54). On
the other hand, the challenges of digital tools identified by the participants
ranked the second highest (59). Students experienced the most frustration
with the sharp learning curve of VIZ (43). The results also indicate that phys-
ical modeling, computer modeling and digital simulation were all effective to
assist design thinking.

4.3 Professional evaluation

The professionals who evaluated the students’ work gave very similar average
scores to each session, though the CAD sessions were ranked slightly higher
than the studio sessions. Among the four dimensions, the scores indicate

Figure 12 Professional
evaluation

284 Design Studies Vol 31 No. 3 May 2010

 that the studio sessions were stronger in formal generation and composition,
whereas the CAD sessions excelled on solar energy control (Figures 11 and 12).

Based on the observations from jury members who had seen students work
from the same project in the past, the four sessions were deemed to be of
a higher standard than previous years, especially in the originality of ideation,
space planning, formal composition, control of daylighting, and views. How-
ever, the craftsmanship of the final physical models were not as strong as in the
past, since the overall time frame of the project remained untouched while the
content expanded with the integration of digital building performance as a key
element in the design process.

5 Conclusion and discussions

This research investigated the effectiveness of PBD in assisting student learning
and performance in beginning interior design education. The results indicated
the overall success of the PBD which was structured as an intermixed use of
digital and non-digital media. Digital simulation of building performance im-
pacted the design process and improved the design outcome. The PBD ap-
proach was effective in gaining an early awareness of sustainable energy for
beginning interior design students. It also enhanced students’ understanding
of the mutual relationship between interior and exterior and between the
man-made and the natural environments. The interaction and atmosphere in
the experimental sessions differed greatly from previous, more traditional
and prescriptive courses, which presented the potential of a more interactive
and engaging learning environment through the application of digital simula-
tion tools. The results also affirmed the power of paper-based media for visual
reasoning, especially in the conceptualization stage.

This study successfully responded to the transformation of PBD in design

practice. However, interior design educators face a number of challenges for
the future growth of PBD in the profession. The lack of resources and training
opportunities hinders teachers who are working to keep pace with the fast de-
velopment of digital technologies. One of the jurors, who will teach the same
studio in the following semester, expressed such concern. Unfortunately, she
was not alone. It is not debatable that design faculty has to seek technical
and financial support within academia and from software vendors and design
practitioners to advance their knowledge base in the digital field. Educators
also have to address the pedagogical challenge of fitting the expanding design
knowledge and techniques into the already full curriculum. They must be more
creative in their teaching so that digital technologies could be effectively
integrated into the design process and the learning environment could be
more engaging and inspiring.

In addition, the disparity between the software industry and the design profes-
sions impede the widespread use of PBD in academia. Many existing software

An interactive dialog between the built environment and its context 285
 applications have sharp learning curves and are designed for industry experts.
Most simulation activities are achieved through iteration, which means that
processing through several software programs may be necessary. For design
students, simple, visually-oriented tools and procedures which produce an ap-
proximate simulation may be more appropriate than complicated professional
tools. Such demands require the academy, the computer specialists, and the
building industry to continue their collaboration on the invention of better
tools. A more seamless integration of digital technologies into design activities
could be accomplished in the foreseeable future.

This study was the first step of a longer project to investigate the scope of in-
tegrating PBD in interior design education. The setup of the project in both
studio and CAD courses shows the potential of a PBD approach to be applied
in various interior design courses which involve building performance ele-
ments. Meanwhile, further investigation is necessary on comparing the work-
load of employing digital and non-digital tools so that the process and
outcome of the work can be continually improved.

No matter the challenges, obstacles, and concerns, interior designers, as one of

the team players in sustainable design, should be better prepared with new
knowledge and new skills for future viability within this growing field. Accord-
ingly, it is increasingly necessary that interior design programs accommodate
PBD as one of the new design processes and methods within the curriculum.

Supplementary material
Supplementary material associated with this paper can be found in the online
version at doi:10.1016/j.destud.2009.12.002.

References
x enyapth, B. (2005). The (in)secure position of the design jury towards
Basa, I., & S
computer generated presentations. Design Studies, 26(3), 257e270.
Bourque, M., DuvalleHarden, C., Fowles, D., Ginthner, D., Jones, L., &
Truelove, E. (2003). Green design education initiative. <http://www.ide-
c.org/greendesign/home.html>. Accessed December 2009.
Brahme, R., Mahdavi, A., Lam, K., & Gupta, S. (2001). Complex building
performance analysis in early stages of design. Seventh International IBPSA
Conference, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Burger, S. M. (2008). Approaches to environmental performance and analysis. In
A. Kudless, N. Oxman, & M. Swackhamer (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th
annual conference of the association for computer aided design in architecture
(pp. 180e181), Minneapolis.
Day, A., & Rahman, R. A. (2006). Physical or digital: alternative approaches to
modeling for a participatory design environment. The International Journal of
Architectural Computing, 4(4), 57e70.
Dorta, T., Pérez, E., & Lesage, A. (2008). The ideation gap: hybrid tools, design
flow and practice. Design Studies, 29(2), 121e141.

286 Design Studies Vol 31 No. 3 May 2010

 Fasoulaki, E. (June 2008). Integrated design: A generative multi-performative
design approach. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Feng, J. (2003). Computer simulation technology and teaching and learning
interior lighting design. International conference on computer graphics and
interactive techniques, ACM SIGGRAPH 2003 Educators Program. pp. 1e3.
San Diego, California.
Frances, M. (2009). Interior design. <http://www.wbdg.org/design/
dd_interiordsgn.php>. Accessed December 2009.
Hendrickson, C., Conway-Schempf, N., Lave, L., & McMichael, F. (2000). Intro-
duction to Green Design. <http://www.ce.cmu.edu/GreenDesign/> Accessed
September 2009.
Kang, M., Kang, J. H., & Barnes, B. (2009). Interior designers’ sustainable energy
awareness and application. Proceedings of the IDEC 2009 Annual Conference,
pp. 611e621. St. Louis, Missouri.
Kibert, C. (2005). Sustainable construction: Green building design and delivery
(2nd ed.). pp. 69e92. NJ: John Wiley & Sons,
Kim, H. (2008). Sustainable design through virtual reality. The International
Journal of the Arts in Society, 3(2), 107e111.
Kolarevis, B., & Malkawi, A. (Eds.). (2005). Performative architecture: Beyond
Instrumentality (pp. 3). New York: Son Press.
Mueller, V. (2006). Integrating digital and non-digital design work. In A. Chaszar
(Ed.), Blurring the lines (pp. 38e45). New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Oxman, R. (2008). Digital architecture as a challenge for design pedagogy: theory,
knowledge, models and medium. Design Studies, 29(2), 99e120.
Preiser, W. F. E., & Vischer, J. C. (Eds.). (2004). Assessing building performance
(pp. 5). MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Schön, D. A., & Wiggins, G. (1988). Kinds of seeing and their functions in design-
ing. Design Studies, 13(2), 135e156.
Whole building design. (2009). U.S. Department of Energy. <http://
www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/commercial/whole_building_design.html>
Accessed December 2009.

An interactive dialog between the built environment and its context 287