Journal Menu
Submit Manuscript via ScholarOne

EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education
Volume 12, Issue 11 (November 2016), pp. 2835-2849

DOI: 10.12973/eurasia.2016.02307a

Downloaded 748 times.

Research Article

Published online on Aug 15, 2016

How to reference this article?


Design, analysis and user acceptance of architectural design education in learning system based on knowledge management theory

Yun-Wu Wu, Yu-An Lin, Ming-Hui Wen, Yeng-Hong Perng & I-Ting Hsu


The major purpose of this study is to develop an architectural design knowledge management learning system with corresponding learning activities to help the students have meaningful learning and improve their design capability in their learning process. Firstly, the system can help the students to obtain and share useful knowledge. Secondly, through extraction, application and creation as well as corresponding learning activities, the students can achieve meaningful learning. Lastly, the system can enable the students to accumulate knowledge and experiences to build their schema automatically and improve their design capability. The technology acceptance model (TAM) analysis results support all the hypotheses of this study, indicating the perceived usefulness and ease of use of the system have a positive influence on the students’ willingness to use the system, which also helps to effectively reduce the problem of cognitive overload of the student in their learning process and then improve their design capability.

Keywords: cognitive workload, technology acceptance, model, architectural design learning

  1. Akin, Ö. (2002). Case-based instruction strategies in architecture. Design Studies, 23(4): 407-431.
  2. An, Y.J., Cao, L. (2014). Examining the Effects of Metacognitive Scaffolding on Students' Design Problem Solving and Metacognitive Skills in an Online Environment. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(4): 552.
  3. Anshari, M., Alas, Y., & Guan, L. S. (2015). Pervasive Knowledge, Social Networks, and Cloud Computing: E-Learning 2.0. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 11(5), 909-921.
  4. Ausubel, D.P. (1966). Meaningful reception learning and the acquisition of concepts. Klausmeier, HJ, &Harris, CW, 157-175.
  5. Bea, F. (1993). Aluminosity dependent fractionation patterns in differentiated granite-leucogranite systems. EOS, 74(16): 343.
  6. Bermudez, J. & King, K. (2000). Media interaction and design process: Establishing a knowledge base. Automation in Construction, 9(1): 37-56.
  7. Chiu, S.H. (2010). Students’ knowledge sources and knowledge sharing in the design studio—an exploratory study. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 20(1): 27-42.
  8. Cierniak, G., Scheiter, K., Gerjets, P. (2009). Explaining the split-attention effect: Is the reduction of extraneous cognitive load accompanied by an increase in germane cognitive load? Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2): 315-324.
  9. Dave, B. & Koskela, L. (2009). Collaborative knowledge management—A construction case study. Automation in Construction, 18(7): 894-902.
  10. Davis, F.D. (1986).  A Technology Acceptance Model for Empirically Testing New End-User Information Systems: Theory and Results. Ph. D. Thesis, Unpublished.Boston: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
  11. Egbu, C., Sturgesand, J., Bates, B. (1999). Learning from knowledge management and trans-organisational innovations in diverse project management environments. In Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference of the Associations of Researchers in Construction Management, Liverpool: Liverpool John Moores University, 95-103.
  12. Forcada, N., Fuertes, A., Gangolells, M., Casals, M., Macarulla, M. (2013). Knowledge management perceptions in construction and design companies. Automation in Construction, 29: 83-91.
  13. Ibrahim, R. & Rahimian, F.P. (2010). Comparison of CAD and manual sketching tools for teaching architectural design. Automation in Construction, 19(8): 978-987.
  14. Jarvenpaa, S.L. & Ztaples, D.S. (2000). The use of collaborative electronic media for information sharing: an exploratory study of determinants. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 9(2): 129-154.
  15. Johannessen, J.A., Olsen, B., Olaisen, J. (1999). Aspects of innovation theory based on knowledge-management. International Journal of InformationManagement, 19(2): 121-139.
  16. Kamara, J.M., Augenbro, e G., Anumba, C.J., Carrillo, P.M. (2002). Knowledge management in the architecture, engineering and construction industry. Construction innovation, 2(1): 53-67.
  17. Kayama, M., Okamoto, T. (2001). A knowledge based navigation system with a semantic map approach. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 4(2): 96-103.
  18. Leahy, W., Sweller, J. (2004). Cognitive load and the imagination effect. Applied cognitive psychology, 18(7): 857-875.
  19. Miller, S.M., Miller, K.L. (1999). Using instructional theory to facilitate communication in web-based courses. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 2(3): 106-114.
  20. Mohammadi, H. (2015). Investigating users’ perspectives on e-learning: An integration of TAM and IS success model. Computers in Human Behavior, 45: 359-374.
  21. Nonaka, I. (1991). The knowledge-creating company. Harvard Business Review, 69(6):96-104.
  22. Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1): 14-37.
  23. Park, E., Kim, K.J. (2014). An integrated adoption model of mobile cloud services: exploration of key determinants and extension of technology acceptance model. Telematics and Informatics, 31(3): 376-385.
  24. Prince, M. J., Felder, R.M. (2006). Inductive teaching and learning methods: Definitions, comparisons, and research bases. Journal of Engineering Education-Washington, 95(2): 123.
  25. Rittel, H., Webber, M. (1984). Planning problems are wicked problems. Developments in Design Methodology. New York: John Wiley &Sons, 135-144.
  26. Rodgers, P.A., Caldwell, N.H., Clarkson, P.J., Huxor, A.P. (2001). The management of concept design knowledge in modern product development organizations. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 14(1): 108-115.
  27. Schön, D.A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action.Basic Books.
  28. Shelbourn, M.A., Bouchlaghem, D.M., Anumba, C.J., Carillo, P.M., Khalfan, M.M., Glass, J. (2006). Managing knowledge in the context of sustainable construction. ITcon, 11, 57-71.
  29. Tergan, S.O. (2005). Digital Concept Maps for Managing Knowledge and Information. In: Knowledge and Information Visualization. Berlin: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 185-204.
  30. Tiwana, A. (2000). The Knowledge Management ToolKit: Practical Techniques for Building a Knowledge Management System. Prentice Hall PTR.
  31. Tosuntaş, Ş.B., Karadağ, E., Orhan, S. (2015). The factors affecting acceptance and use of interactive whiteboard within the scope of FATIH project: A structural equation model based on the Unified Theory of acceptance and use of technology. Computers & Education, 81: 169-178.
  32. Tserng, H.P., Lin, Y.C. (2005). A knowledge management portal system for construction projects using knowledge map. Knowledge Management in the Construction Industry: A Sociotechnical Perspective, 299-322.
  33. Wallace, L.G., Sheetz, S.D. (2014). The adoption of software measures: A technology acceptance model (TAM) perspective. Information & Management, 51(2): 249-259.
  34. Wang, M. (2011). Integrating organizational, social, and individual perspectives in Web 2.0-based workplace e-learning. Information Systems Frontiers, 13(2): 191-205.
  35. Wang, W.L., Shih, S.G., Chien, S.F. (2010). A ‘Knowledge Trading Gamefor collaborative design learning in an architectural design studio. International journal of Technology and Design Education, 20(4): 433-451.
  36. Wang, T. S. (2013). Design and assessment of joyful mobile navigation systems based on TAM and integrating learning models applied on ecological teaching activity. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 9(2), 201-212.
  37. Wong, C.C., Hiew, P.L. (2005). Mobile entertainment: Review and redefine. Mobile Business, 187-192.