Building performance simulation for sensemaking in architectural pedagogy

Bohm, M (2025) Building performance simulation for sensemaking in architectural pedagogy. Buildings & Cities, 6(1), pp. 450-465. ISSN 2632-6655

Abstract

During sensemaking one constructs meaning from one's chaotic surrounding information; cues are extracted and attended to such that action is possible. Within architecture, making sense of quantitative information (e.g. carbon emissions) can facilitate climate responsiveness from early stages of building design. This paper posits that building performance simulation (BPS) can be a tool to nurture so-called 'spatial-data sensemaking' within architectural training; the pedagogy must manage uncertainty so students can make sense of performance data during design. This teaching method was used in an undergraduate architecture class. Students used BPS to design buildings, using visual audits to build trust in the results about performance; precision was downplayed in favor of actionable information. A qualitative analysis of these architectural students' reflections (n = 104) is presented to shed light on how they construct understandings of BPS. Results suggest that students deepened their understanding of building–energy relationships, and refined their intuition, especially about interrelationships and trade-offs. They understood BPS to be a tool providing useful information, especially the visual, through experimentation to support design decision-making and argumentation, and ultimately for effecting change in architectural practice.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: architecture; building performance simulation; climate emergency; education; energy; net zero; pedagogy; spatial-data sensemaking; teaching and learning
Index terms: building performance simulation, reflection, architectural practice, teaching method, pedagogy, undergraduate, net zero, carbon emission, building design, audit, qualitative analysis, intuition, design decision, sensemaking, experiment, meaning
Subjects: cognitive psychology, climate science, architectural design, curriculum development, professional development, teaching methods, design practice, performance measurement, sociology, business, research design and methodology, data collection methods, energy systems, modelling and simulation
Topics: Business Strategy, Research Practice, Information Management, Design Practice, Digital Applications, Sustainability, Education, Quality Management
Descriptive scope: 4 PCEA

N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here