Perspectives for CAAD Integration

Many educational programs were proposed and developed in the field of architecture and engineering disciplines which aim to integrate digital tools in the design curriculum (Oxman 2008) as opposed to the customary approach of integrating CAAD into the IT curriculum. However, at present the teaching in many, if not most, of architectural design schools falls behind in this respect. The project model of design in many of the architectural studios is still firmly based on visual thinking and reasoning with paper media (Oxman 2008; Zuo, Leonard and MaloneBeach 2010; Basa andŞenyapili 2005).

Recent trends in integrating CAAD teaching into a studio project model consisted of using digital design precedents from the industry to emphasis CAAD impact on design methods and form generation (Achten 2003; Achten and Reymen 2005), and by emphasising contemporary issues of the built environment through employing both CAAD and manual methods of making and evaluation, for example, focusing on sustainability issues using environmental analysis tools.

The following studies show some of these trends.

The majority of the tools that designers presently use result in representations that emphasise the product of the design process (design) rather than the process of designing. The knowledge of design methods behind the product remain concealed and may be lost (Tidafi and Iordanova 2006), and hence cannot be learnt or shared. Advances in technology, including CAAD systems, are changing the processes as well as the methods through the emergent

representation in industry of greater awareness of the new tools and their processes. This should be reflected in educational teaching methods and processes, thus new strategies should be proposed or experimented with. Many CAAD teaching researchers, e.g. Tidafi and Iordanova (2006), Achten and Reymen (2005), emphasised that architectural precedents aid the introduction of digital media to a studio context through design methods application (Achten and Reymen 2005; Achten 2003) or experimentation (Tidafi and Iordanova 2006). It was observed that both approaches were successful in identifying the digital design and as a result, this influenced the students’ methods (their individual design strategies) as well as their awareness of the design processes and its knowledge.

A recent study by Zuo, Leonard and MaloneBeach (2010) confirmed that using a CAAD (Performance-Based Design) approach as part of the knowledge requisite for the (interior) architectural design curriculum is essential. Moreover, it has a significant role in emphasising contemporary issues of the built environment, such as sustainability and building performance, which supports students' awareness of the specified issues. Zuo, Leonard and MaloneBeach’s (2010) approach modified the traditional design process, and affected not only the scientific (building energy use) aspects of the built environment that were raised but the spatial and aesthetic decisions also. Fifty-five (51 completed the survey) second year students (interior design) were enrolled on a four-semester course to focus on studio and CAAD studies interchangeably along the four semesters. All the students worked on the same project and were asked to use a combination of CAAD and manual methods of design exploration. The new approach (Zuo, Leonard and MaloneBeach 2010) of the project model shifted the studio instructor role into a more critical role. It was observed that the new role encouraged, besides working on a one to one basis with the students on design issues, a technical supportive role to solve CAAD operational questions, and monitoring the project construction and progress in two formats: digital and physical. As instructors they became closer to being project directors than supervisors. This was categorised as an active teaching mode.

The participants described SketchUp as easy and less accurate compared to other CAAD systems (e.g. VIZ) for 3D (free form) exploration. Also when compared to physical modelling it was described as “less forgiving”, and faster to

participants to find problems during the transformation process and notice other problems that were identified by their instructors in the physical format. However, fewer participants claimed that the physical modelling was important as it engaged the senses to understand the spatial aspects (volumes and dimensions). As a result, the group who worked in the studio had made more modifications than the CAAD group, mainly because of the visual quality of CAAD models and images which restrained the state of the unfinished, therefore, there was more to complete. A sense of enjoyment was reported when the students experimented through design simulation (e.g. walk through, and real time interaction) to experience the form, the spaces, light and context.

The results of the study showed a positive impact on exploring design in a combination of physical and digital modelling. Digital modelling was ranked significantly higher than physical modelling in aspects such as lighting experimentation and design modification. However, physical modelling was ranked higher for seeing their design site in context compared to CAAD various techniques. The study results suggested three main points:

 all (digital, physical modelling and CAAD simulation) media used were effective to assist design thinking.

 adapting similar approaches would initiate a transformational change in the student’s preconception of a CAAD presentation tool to a thinking supportive tool.

 teaching CAAD techniques in conjunction with design theory and methods to reflect on both; design thinking and final presentation.

In the traditional approach of the same studio there were no design explorative studies carried out using CAAD. However, employing the approach has changed CAAD’s role into that of an active assistant with “two-fold, .. visual reasoning, and building performance simulation,” (Zuo, Leonard and MaloneBeach’s 2010 p.

275). This also augmented “the diversity and depth of design thinking.” by adding another thinking cycle(s) of design evaluation at an early phase of design. As a result, the project model was successful in transforming CAAD usage from being a presentational system that presents what was developed manually (paper/

physical modelling), to one that actively supported that development.

Continuous advancement in CAAD has helped to change the design process and the traditional studio context, but at a slower pace than in other design fields.

Through a critical and practical appraisal of media types, designers became aware of the capabilities and limitations of each media in relation to their own practice. Media awareness by intermixing digital and traditional representations brought “smarter practice” (Mueller 2006; Zuo, Leonard and MaloneBeach 2010 p. 272).

3.6 Summary

CAAD has been discussed in this chapter in relation to two kinds of study:

cognitive/experimental studies as a media compared to sketching as another media for thinking, and studies that are carried out within the studio context (project model). The discussion reflects on the surface approach to CAAD learning, which is determined by the prevalent trend of using CAAD passively on the first level of interactivity (external). That implies a presentation tool which may witness minor insights for the sake of conceptual design. The main variables identified in the review were (1) the characteristics of today’s student should be considered in more depth in relation to skill sets and design method preferences, (2) the architectural practice and the emergence of digital architecture as a new media and knowledge base, and (3) the changing nature of digital technology towards more friendly software programs and applications.

Thus in the context of design curriculum, there is a need to redirect CAAD’s integration towards new ways of design exploration (Zuo, Leonard and MaloneBeach 2010). These practices have never been explored systematically within studio teaching. However, this is changing and the shift in attitude towards CAAD has just started to be explored by CAAD enthusiastic tutors and instructors (e.g. Zuo, Leonard and MaloneBeach 2010; Lu 2008).

How CAAD would influence a student’s design process is not yet understood.

However, it is recognised that the majority of architectural design students, as part of the wider student population, are described as a motivated sample who use CAAD on their own, and where this is the case, it is important to understand how the interaction is taking place. Alongside this, another point which should be taken into consideration is student’s preferences. Therefore, studying a hypothetical interaction in a similar situation is important even if it is argued by

some studies as inappropriate. Most studies in CAAD are descriptive in the sense that students have positive attitudes towards the use of computers in design on a general level. However, in relation to CAAD practical methods, investigation should be carried out on many levels from the perspective of the student as well as the tutor.

To conclude, designing is an interactive activity that takes place in the studio context. Interaction between students, workspace tools and project model has to be investigated on two levels: the macro level and the micro level. With respect to the educational setting, the macro level of interaction is more constrained compared to the micro level which is more individual and spontaneous. The latter level reflects the student's design methodology, experience and tools’

preferences. However, most design studies have investigated design activity in relation to tools and media on either levels of design activity.

In the next chapter, the methodological means are discussed with respect to design studies and CAAD oriented studies. The methods that are considered aim to pragmatically investigate CAAD impact on students on two levels of design visual interaction: the macro level and the micro level.

Knowledge

4 Research Methodology

This chapter outlines the context for design research, design research methods, and CAAD-oriented research. Two strategies of inquiry are specifically considered: case study and design protocol study. Design research is outlined in the first section, design research methods in the second section, and “design process” research approaches are reviewed in the third and final sections.