Erken Tasarım Aşamasında Mimarlık Öğrencilerinin Fiziksel ve Bilgisayar Destekli Modelleme Kullanım Tercihleri

Öz

Erken tasarım aşamasında mimarlık öğrencileri arasında fiziksel maket modelleme veya bilgisayar destekli tasarım (CAD) modelleme kullanım tercihleri analiz edilmiştir. Veriler, sekiz çoktan seçmeli soru ve bir açık uçlu sorudan oluşan bir anketten elde edilmiştir. Katılımcılar mimarlık öğrencileridir ve çoğunluğu lisans eğitimine devam etmektedir. Kantitatif analiz yöntemleri olarak, z-dağılımı olarak bilinen olasılık ve Ki-kare dağılımına dayalı hipotez testleri gerçekleştirilmiştir. Genel olarak erken tasarım aşamasında hangi modelleme tekniğinin daha verimli olduğu araştırılmıştır. Ayrıca katılımcıların yaş gruplarına göre fiziksel ve CAD modelleme tercihlerindeki farklılık tespit edilmiştir. Sonuç olarak, daha genç öğrenciler CAD'i tercih ederken, diğerler öğrenciler ise fiziksel maket temsilini tercih etmiştir. Farklılığın nedenleri analiz edilmiştir. Fiziksel maket modelleme veya CAD modelleme seçimi hem öğrencilerin hem de profesyonellerin tasarım süreçleri üzerinde güçlü bir etkiye sahip olabileceği için çalışmanın sonucu önemlidir, çünkü gelecekteki olası mimarlık uygulamaları hakkında bir ipucu verir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Fiziksel Modelleme
• Bilgisayar Destekli Modelleme
• Mimari Tasarım Stüdyoları
• Erken Tasarım Aşaması

Mock-up versus CAD Modeling Preferences of Architecture Students in the Early Design Phase

Öz

Preferences for using physical mock-up modeling or computer-aided design (CAD) among architecture students in the early design phase are analyzed. The data is obtained from a questionnaire, consisting of eight multiple-choice questions and one open-ended question. The respondents are architecture students; the majority of them are still in their undergraduate studies. As quantitative analysis methods hypothesis tests based on the probability distributions known as the z-distribution, and the Chi-squared distribution were carried out. Generally, it was investigated which modeling technique is more efficient in the early design phase. Moreover, according to the age groups of respondents, the difference in the preference among mock-up and CAD is identified. Explicitly, younger students prefer CAD, while other ones prefer mock-up representation. The reasons for the difference are analyzed. Since the choice for mock-up modeling or CAD modeling can have a strong impact on the design processes of both, students and professionals, the result of the study is relevant, because it gives a hint about probable future architecture practice.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Mock up Modeling
• Computer-Aided-Design Modeling
• Architectural Design Studios
• Early Design Phase

Kaynakça

1. Bhavnani, S. K. (2000). Designs conducive to the use of efficient strategies. In Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, Practices, Methods, and Techniques (pp. 338–345).
2. Bhavnani, S. K., & Bates, M. J. (2002). Separating the knowledge layers: Cognitive analysis of search knowledge through hierarchical goal decompositions. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 39(1), 204–213.
3. Bhavnani, S. K., & John, B. E. (1997). From sufficient to efficient usage: An analysis of strategic knowledge. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 91–98).
4. Bhavnani, S. K., John, B. E., & Flemming, U. (1999). The strategic use of CAD: An empirically inspired, theory-based course. In Proceedings of The SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 42–49).
5. Bhavnani, S. K., Reif, F., & John, B. E. (2001). Beyond command knowledge: Identifying and teaching strategic knowledge for using complex computer applications. In Proceedings of The SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 229–236).
6. Bhavnani, S., Garrett, J., & Shaw, D. (1993). Leading indicators of CAD experience. Computer Aided Architectural Design (CAAD) Futures (pp. 313–334). https://papers.cumincad.org/data/works/att/4dd6.content.pdf
7. Cannaerts, C. (2009). Models of/ models for architecture: Physical and digital modelling in early design stages. The New Realm of Architectural Design, 27th eCAADe Conference Proceedings, (pp. 781-786). https://papers.cumincad.org/data/works/att/ecaade2009_111.content.pdf
8. Chapman, G. (1995). Computer aided design in industrial design education. Journal of Art and Design Education, 14(1), 65–76.

9. Chester, I. (2008). 3D-CAD: Modern technology–outdated pedagogy? Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 12(1), 7–9.
10. Collopy, F. (2004). Managing as designing. Stanford University Press.
11. Çil, E., & Pakdil, O. (2007). Design instructor’s perspective on the role of computers in architectural education: A case study. METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 24(2), 123–136.
12. Dorta T. Design Flow and Ideation. International Journal of Architectural Computing. 2008;6(3):299-316. https://doi.org/10.1260/1478-0771.6.3.299
13. Empler, T. (2018). Representation in architecture as idea, physical model, 3D modeling, BIM. Handbook of research on form and morphogenesis in modern architectural contexts (p. 93-106) IGI Global
14. Hadia, H. & Elias Özkan, B. S. (2016). Modelling in architecture: Physical or virtual? Arab Society for Computation in Architecture, Art and Design (ASCAAD), no 16. pp.135-144.
15. Hanna, R., & Barber, T. (2001). An inquiry into computers in design: Attitudes before-attitudes after. Design Studies, 22(3), 255–281.
16. Heidari, P. (2018). Questioning design tools in the early stage of architectural design process: Pen and paper vs. digital sketching. Yıldız Teknik University, İstanbul. http://dspace.yildiz.edu.tr/xmlui/handle/1/12894
17. Johnson, A. R. & Wichern, D. W. (2007). Applied multivariate statistical analysis (sixth edition). Pearson Education.
18. Kim, Y.D. (2019). A Design Methodology Using Prototyping Based on the Digital-Physical Models in the Architectural Design Process. Sustainability
19. Kristianova, K., Meciar, I., Joklova, V. (2018). Physical Models in Architectural Education and Use of New Technologies. Proceedings of ICERI 2018 Conference, 2018.
20. Lawson, B. (2005). How designers think: The design process demystified. Architectural Press (4th ed.). Lee, S. & Yan, J. (2016). The impact of 3D CAD interfaces on user ideation: A comparative analysis using SketchUp and Silhouette Modeler. 0142-694X. Design Studies 44, 52-73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2016.02.001
21. Marcos Carlos L. (2022). The process of architectural design as a dialogue between the architect and architecture mediated through drawing. Proceedings of the 43rd International Conference of Representation Disciplines Teachers. Milano. 816-824.
22. Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81–97. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043158 Özbaki, Ç., Çağdaş, G., Kilimci, E. (2016). Maket ve Dijital Ortamda Tasarım Üretkenliğinin Karşılaştırılması. Megaron 11(3). https://jag.journalagent.com/megaron/pdfs/MEGARON_11_3_398_411.pdf
23. Rowe, G. P. (1987). Design thinking. The MIT Press.
24. Stevens, G. (1997). Reflections of an apostate CAD teacher. Journal of Architectural Education, 51(1), 78–80.
25. Sun, L., Fukuda, T., Tokuhara, T., Yabuki, N. (2013). Differences in spatial understanding between physical and virtual models. Frontiers of Architectural Research. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095263513000800
26. Pektaş, Ş.T. & Erkip, F. (2006). Attitudes of design students toward computer usage in design. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 16(1), 79–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-005-3175-0
27. Togay, A., Coşkun, M., Güneş, S. & Güneş, C. (2016). Computer aided design in education and its’ interpretation through design thinking. Global Journal on Humanites & Social Sciences [Online]. 3, pp 328-337. Available from: http://sproc.org/ojs/index.php/pntsbs
28. Wood, J. (2004). Open minds and a sense of adventure: How teachers of art and design approach technology. International Journal of Art and Design Education, 23, 179–191. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-8070.2004.00396.x
29. Yang, F. C., & Lynch, R. (2014). The relationship between learning style preference for computer drawing and learning outcomes in a computer aided design course at a computer training center in Taiwan. Human Sciences, 6(2), 114–120. https://core.ac.uk/reader/233619830
30. Ye, X., Peng, W., Chen, Z., & Cai, Y. (2004). Today’s students, tomorrow’s engineers: An industrial perspective on CAD education. Computer-Aided Design, 36(14), 1451–1460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cad.2003.11.006
31. Bhavnani, S. K. (2000). Designs conducive to the use of efficient strategies. In Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, Practices, Methods, and Techniques (pp. 338–345).
32. Bhavnani, S. K., & Bates, M. J. (2002). Separating the knowledge layers: Cognitive analysis of search knowledge through hierarchical goal decompositions. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 39(1), 204–213.
33. Bhavnani, S. K., & John, B. E. (1997). From sufficient to efficient usage: An analysis of strategic knowledge. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 91–98).
34. Bhavnani, S. K., John, B. E., & Flemming, U. (1999). The strategic use of CAD: An empirically inspired, theory-based course. In Proceedings of The SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 42–49).