Assessing the post-occupancy performance of educational design/build: the thinking while doing initiative
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Educational design/build (e-d/b) curricula in university-level professional schools of architecture have flourished in recent years, internationally, as new programs are launched and the volume of built work increases dramatically. This growing body of built work, however, has typically not been subjected to rigorous behavioral assessment from the standpoint of what is actually built, as experienced through the eyes of user-recipients in the everyday milieu. The lack of rigor in this aspect of assessing the efficacy of what gets built continues to hinder evidence-based academic scholarship on this subject. Design/methodology/approach An interdisciplinary research initiative titled Thinking While Doing, spanning the years 2013–2019, centered on exploring the inner profundities of e-d/b. As part of a multifaceted project involving seven universities in Canada and the United States, behaviorally focused post-occupancy assessments were conducted of three open-air pavilion structures from the viewpoint of 161 respondents' impressions, degree of satisfaction and everyday uses. Findings Functionality, community context, materiality and aesthetic factors were among the set of variables analyzed. Among the results, the three open air pavilions were viewed as tectonically sound and aesthetically iconic and were considered to be valued additions to their immediate physical contexts and local community. Research limitations/implications Study limitations and directions for future research are discussed. Practical implications Student learning objectives in relation to the design intent of the built structures are highlighted. Social implications This evidence-based design research empowers stakeholders seeking campus-community partnership opportunities. Originality/value This is the first comparative, behaviorally focused appraisal of its type from the perspective of everyday user-recipients in the realm of e-d/b.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it