## 6 Limitations  
The case studies also revealed certain limitations in using a TIA as a pedagogical tool.  
Firstly, students found some TIA typologies easier to comprehend, leading to variations in the depth of investigations and the versatility of derived material systems. For instance, investigations centered around tetrahedra allowed students to engage in more comprehensive investigations, thus gaining broader design knowledge than students who tackled other TIA typologies.  
Next, the tutors' familiarity with TIA geometries and interdependencies influenced their ability to remain impartial in guiding students towards their unique investigations. Unintentionally, tutors imposed their understanding of TIA's underlying rules, resulting in less diverse student projects over time. Student investigations became more tutor-led, losing the bottom-up approach driven by personal hands-on knowledge gained with each iteration. Consequently, prescription and similarity supplanted ownership, divergence, explorations, and versatility.  
Further, TIA is inherently complex in structure, fabrication, and construction. Students explored TIA material systems for various surface curvatures, focusing on descriptive geometry unrelated to buildability and structural stability. Case studies emphasized investigations of typical geometries and interdependencies of TIA's constituent elements. They did not address necessary boundary constraints for assembly or their impact on edge and corner configurations. Additionally, fabricating and assembling TIA entail significant costs, posing challenges in proposing realistic and feasible architectural applications.  
Finally, the design workshop primarily focused on digital parametric modeling to run algorithms, requiring a steep software learning curve to achieve this. Consequently, students spent most of their time acquiring instrumental knowledge of the software to encode algorithms rather than exploring its generative potential. Instrumental knowledge of the software directly influenced the understanding of TIA and the formulation of its algorithm, making the design process subservient to the digital tool's limitations. The result limited engagement with computational thinking as instrumental software knowledge, or its lack of, directly enabled or disabled students in the act of design [36].  
As a result, the design workshop tasks and methodology have evolved in recent years. The focus has shifted towards defining two- and three-dimensional tessellations as material systems. If interlocking is introduced, it is not topological but planar, reminiscent of [PERSON]'s work. This approach simplifies investigations but allows for more significant student appropriation, ownership, and customizations. Analogue algorithm formulations use pseudocode and flowchart formats. Investigations are conducted primarily hands on. They inform algorithm formations, output variations, limitations, materiality, fabrication tools and techniques, and on-site assembly sequence.  
Students find the architectural applicability of tessellations more intuitive, as they can be applied at various scales while addressing multiple aspects such as program requirements, environmental performance, and aesthetics (facade panels, shading screens and canopies, floor tiling, and pavilions). Students can address the structural principles, architectural detailing, and construction processes of the simplified notions investigated. Still, although the design workshop's learning outcomes increased in range, students' geometric investigations have reduced in depth and spatial understanding.