Preliminary stages of CAAD education

www.elsevier.com/locate/autcon

Automation in Construction 12 (2003) 661–670

Preliminary stages of CAAD education

Earl Marka,*, Bob Martensb, Rivka Oxmanc

aUniversity of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USAbVienna University of Technology, Vienna, AustriacTechnion Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel

Abstract

According to the Education and Research in Computer Aided Architectural Design in Europe’s (eCAADe) mission,

exchange and collaboration within the area of CAAD education and research, respecting the pedagogical and administrative

approaches in the different schools and countries, can be regarded as a core activity. The following paper reports on some of the

pedagogical issues that have been derived from a preliminary review and roundtable participants’ experiences with CAAD

curricula. This review reflects discussions that were held at the eCAADe 2002 conference in Warsaw (Poland) and also follows

up on two earlier discussions held at eCAADe 2001 and eCAADe 2000.

D 2003 Published by Elsevier B.V.

Keywords: Architectural school; Curriculum; Computer-based design methods; Pedagogical strategy

1. Introduction

The primary objective of the 2002 plenary ses-

sion on ‘‘The Ideal Computer Curriculum’’ in

Warsaw, Poland was to expand upon the first

roundtable discussion held at Education and Re-

search in Computer Aided Architectural Design in

Europe (eCAADe) 2000 in Weimar, Germany and

also a follow-up session that was held at eCAADe

2001 in Helsinki, Finland. The aim of the eCAADe

2002 session in Poland was to engage participants

in a less scripted and more active discussion,

limited at the beginning to short opening statements

in order to ensure time for exchanging viewpoints

with conference attendees.

0926-5805/$ - see front matter D 2003 Published by Elsevier B.V.

doi:10.1016/S0926-5805(03)00045-1

* Corresponding author.

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (E. Mark),

[email protected] (B. Martens),

[email protected] (R. Oxman).

Some specific subject areas were defined at the

second session titled ‘‘The Ideal Computer Curricu-

lum’’ at the eCAADe 2001 conference [1] in Helsinki.

In particular, an educational framework was intro-

duced in which subject areas were categorized accord-

ing to three levels in the shape of a pyramid. The first

base level of the pyramid was entitled ‘‘Digital Design

Media.’’ This base level covered a broad set of

computer-based design applications at an introductory

level, including interactive communications (web

page development), geometrical modeling, digital

image processing, and mixed media productions that

involve the use of digital video, scanning, and output

media. Higher levels within the pyramid referred to

more advanced subject areas. The eCAADe 2001

conference was followed by a ‘‘first round’’ of written

statements developed in response to the proposed

educational framework. These statements served as

background for the plenary session at eCAADe 2002.

The eCAADe 2002 plenary session itself provided the

E. Mark et al. / Automation in Construction 12 (2003) 661–670662

‘‘second round’’ of discussion in which further inves-

tigation and more viewpoints were explored. This

‘‘second round’’ is reported in detail here.

2. The ‘‘first round’’ of position statements

responding to eCAADe 2001

The following section presents a set of issues that

were raised in written statements in addressing the

current educational framework. The preparatory stage

of design education was defined by Chase and Pentilla

as a significant topic. They related the preparatory stage

to the larger framework of a complete educational

program. Other issues related to the significance of

the activity in the design studio and its relation to the

total curricula were raised by Kvan and Schnabel.

According to their view, the culture of the design studio

is becoming increasingly digital. However, it does not

mean that the studio is the ultimate venue for true

innovation in all media, therefore, it is important to

understand how the emerging context in the design

studio may change the focus and the goals of more

specific computer-aided design research and technol-

ogy courses. Is CAAD as a distinct topic of inquiry

fading in significance as it becomes mainstream? What

are the challenges in design education that may neces-

sitate some degree of specialization in order to push the

state of the art?

2.1. Statement: pedagogical issues for first year

architectural design computing [Scott Chase]

First year students come to the university with a

wide range of backgrounds, skills, and expectations.

An introductory curriculum should cater to and shape

this variety, allowing students to achieve a basic level

of computing skill and knowledge while still allowing

potential advanced exploration by

� ensuring a basic level of computing skill;� replacing bad computing practices with good ones;� demonstrating the potential of computing tools for

design;� encouraging a considered approach to the use of

computing tools;� providing an appreciation and understanding of

the benefits and difficulties in using the com-

puter in conjunction with or instead of nondigital

methods.

2.1.1. Prior knowledge

The first hurdle in teaching incoming students is to

ensure that they have a basic level of computing skills

and good habits. Students enter the university these

days with significant computing experience, but de-

spite possible claims to the contrary are often still

lacking certain basic IT skills. Optional bridging

classes are good ways to ensure basic competency;

university IT classes can be customized to ensure

relevance to an architecture curriculum. One benefit

of a bridging class is that it can introduce good

computing habits, e.g., proper backup procedures.

2.1.2. Integration

Integration is the buzzword for developing new

CAAD curricula. Given traditional architectural ped-

agogy, implementation can be difficult. A key goal is

to enable the students to see the relevance of com-

puting to their design process, and to ensure that it is

utilized properly. This requires

� active participation of computing teaching staff

throughout the curriculum, especially in design

studios;� an understanding by design tutors of the potential

of computing in design and a willingness to

actively lead students down this path;� recognition of the considerable changes that may

need to occur in a studio curriculum, e.g., the

introduction of short design exercises that simulta-

neously develop both computing and design skills

and knowledge;� greater support in preliminary stages of teaching,

when students are unclear about new technology

and its application to a discipline with which they

are unfamiliar.

2.1.3. Results

By the end of the preliminary stages of learning,

computer use should be engrained in the student’s

everyday working patterns. This includes

� design exploration;� presentation (e.g. image processing, word process-

ing, web, paper);

E. Mark et al. / Automation in Construction 12 (2003) 661–670 663

� communication (e.g. email, discussion boards,

assignment submission).

In summary, the first year curriculum should show

the students the possibilities of design computing,

teach good computing practices, and offer a broad

base from which to build upon.

2.2. Statement: skill-based or knowledge-centered:

which approach to teaching CAAD? [Tom Kvan]

There are two frameworks for teaching observed in

schools of architecture. The most distinctive mode of

architectural education is the well-established tradi-

tion of project-based teaching in the studio. This

method of teaching reflects the nature of practice

where the business of architecture revolves around

the delivery of design in a project setting. This task-

focused process is well suited to building tacit knowl-

edge, the knowledge of doing and action. In contrast,

CAAD teaching typically focuses on skill building

and is taught independently of action. CAAD classes

are set up to teach geometrical modeling, digital

image processing, and the use of digital video, scan-

ning and output media. This is paralleled in other

skill-teaching schools that offer such as classes in life

drawing, drafting, and model making.

Is CAAD teaching skill building or should we

consider it as an action-based activity? I would argue

that the skill-focused means of teaching is detrimental

to the development of appropriate skills and attitudes

in CAAD application. Since skills are acquirable by

most people through repetitive practice, the value of

these skills is relatively low. This mode of teaching

reinforces the perception that CAAD is a technique

and tool that is separate from architecture. Practice

reflects this by setting up CAAD departments of

digital draftsmen. Discourse in architecture reflects

this in the distinction between designers and computer

users. In all, the attitude hinders development of

digital exploration of architecture.

To overcome this, we need to frame all teaching

of CAAD as knowledge building, not skill building.

So, in the tradition of our teaching, this means

teaching in project-centered activities. Clearly, there

are advantages in the skill-centered approach. Ac-

cess to expensive and scarce resources can be

managed; the repetitive nature of command instruc-

tion can be minimized. The penalties of teaching in

this mode, however, are not considered and should

be articulated.

2.3. Statement: adapting architectural computing into

preliminary stages of architectural education—a few

common dilemmas and a few proposed solutions to

them [Hannu Penttila]

2.3.1. Check students’ skill level

� Do not waste time in teaching word processing,

email, or hardware architecture to all first year

students—basic IT literacy and skills will be more

and more common knowledge;� Offer optional IT-basics info for those who need it;� Target your teaching resources to essential archi-

tectural design education with the new media.

2.3.2. Avoid overemphasized and misleading IT

expertise

� Early IT expertise with no architectural under-

standing tends to lead the architectural students

easily to non-design activities, such as general IT

and CAAD-maintenance work;� First year students, especially from elementary

schools, are very open to whatever ideas given by

their tutors, hence, start immediately with architec-

tural tradition.

2.3.3. Start teaching CAAD immediately with archi-

tectural design problems

� Never ever start courses with CAD-system specific

technical facts;� Do not underestimate students’ ability to search for

technical solutions independently;� Students teach minor keyboard skills to each other.

2.3.4. Teach the teachers

� Architectural students seem to know CAD tools

and gadgets better than their design tutors—a

constantly growing dilemma;� Low CAD expertise of tutors leads to controversial

classroom situations: tutors manage the content but

not the tool to work with;


� Organize separate workshops for new media

essentials, such as CAD basics and web publishing,

for design teachers;� Digital tips and tricks can easily be taught in few-

hour intensive sessions;� Your ‘‘less digitally conscious’’ colleagues tend to

have a high motivation in learning the digital tools.

2.3.5. Create CAAD facilities that support teamwork

� CAD is often taught in large, hierarchically

organized classroom suitable for mass education;� Organize also smaller-scale design studio facilities

and architectural workgroup ‘‘cells’’ equipped with

CAAD facilities.

2.3.6. Distribute and adapt CAAD education to

‘‘traditional architectural education’’

� CAAD education should be taught during the

whole span of architectural education;� Integrate CAAD education into architectural cur-

ricula;� IT and CAAD education should be taught by all

architectural professors;� In fact, ‘‘digital’’ is currently already very

traditional.

2.4. Statement: motivation and stimuli [Marc Aurel

Schnabel]

Students entering The University of Hong Kong

(HKU) already own powerful computers with CAAD

software. The whole campus of HKU and its peripher-

ies are networked either wirelessly or with high-speed

network connections. Lecture notes, assignments, and

tutorials are typically on-line. Digital communication,

working within multimedia and mobile environments

is for most Hong Kong students’ a common practice.

The learning or teaching of any form of digital media

must therefore reflect the expertise that students al-

ready have before they receive an architectural educa-

tion. In many cases, students do not require long

training in the operation of software. Even complex

3D thinking is widely acquired through, e.g., interac-

tive 3D games. The availability and ease-to-use of

software give students the chance to explore more in

less time without supervision than ever before.

Consequently, CAAD education has to stimulate

interest in architectural design and, more importantly,

establish a mechanism to control and enhance the

quality of the architectural design produced with the

help of digital media. At HKU, we realized that the

direct and instantaneous translation of idea to form

plays a key role in the education and development of

architectural design. 3D-Modellers, 3D-Scanners, Vir-

tual Environments and Rapid Prototyping are used to

aid both students and teachers in exploring and

studying architectural creativity in a way that enables

a deeper involvement into design issues. These design

techniques with direct cause-impact-circles give enor-

mous motivation to students. Since production time

and cost are fairly eliminated, students do not become

too attached to a design, which is the outcome of long

training of particular IT applications, modeling, and

production.

Working with multimedia systems is based on the

creativity of design ideas and the skill to combine

different (traditional or digital) applications to create

and transform design. Education must provide the

right incentives to students to engage in independent

experimenting and as a result in self-learning. Differ-

ences in IT skills of students and teachers level out

through the students’ engagement using multimedia

tools in different disciplines and design contexts.

Vertical studios, which make use of IT, challenge

and engage students to acquire new techniques and

skills.

We do not teach CAAD but tie digital media

together with other areas of the curriculum and

discipline: visual communication techniques, prece-

dent studies, ‘kit-of-parts’ design, collaboration with

engineers, etc. In other words, digital architectural

education is dependent on the stimulation and crea-

tivity of students and teachers rather than on hard- or

software or the teaching of those.

3. The second round at eCAADe 2002

At the beginning of the roundtable, Earl Mark,

University of Virginia, noted that the eCAADe orga-

nization is moving into its third decade. During its

history, there has been a perceptible shift in architec-

tural design toward computing. The proliferation of

technology in modeling and rendering has led to a


more visible presence of computer work in schools

and in practice. Yet, underlying all this change, it is

still open to question if and how the conceptual basis

for design processes in architecture has changed from

those of more traditional design media. For example,

among general design faculty, in design visualization

there seems to be a growing use of computer models

as a substitute for or supplement to traditional models.

However, these computer models may still be thought

of in traditional modeling terms, an assembly of single

and nonmutable objects, where each one is change-

able by replacement rather than by more abstract

algorithmic modification. In a similar way, the har-

nessing of computer numerical control (CNC) routing,

milling, and laser cutting technology to computers in

studio has resulted in a more facile way of making

some physical models over traditional methods, but

has not necessarily led to a qualitatively different

exploration of physical models in all cases.

More generally, it was noted in the roundtable

discussion that young design students can be seduced

by the speed and productive capacity of computing to

provide quick perspectives and complex geometry, a

somewhat poor substitute at times for the cognitively

rich and tectonic process of realizing drawings and

models strictly by hand. These approaches may fall

short of a more complete potential of adapting com-

puter-based logical process to design. For example, as

MIT PhD student Ivan Sutherland demonstrated in the

very first CAD system in 1963, a computer model can

allow for scale variation, the nesting of instances of

modular geometry, and placing constraints on geo-

metrical relationships, but these paradigms of use

seem to have advanced in only a minor number of

design studios. While many schools may have rightly

identified the need to train students in computer-based

visualization methods to keep pace with the changing

world of practice, the substitution of a computer

media for more traditional media may have occurred

in a relatively conservative context, not necessarily

encouraging of uses that challenge the prevailing

nature of design processes in studio, or that focus

on new exploration, or that engage the paradigms that

are being cited in research, such as presented at

eCAADe and its sister organizations in North Amer-

ica, South America, and Asia. There is a danger that

progress is being measured superficially in terms of

the prevalence of computer-related material rather

than according to substantive advances in design

methods, inquiry, and theory. The roundtable discus-

sion addressed the general condition in education

from a wide range of perspectives.

3.1. Establishing a common foundation

Scott Chase, University of Strathclyde, began by

addressing the need to ensure a basic level of com-

puter skills and noted that students are very diverse in

their distinct educational backgrounds. He also noted

that schools still need to provide optional courses in

order to allow those students who do not have basic IT

skills (word processing, spreadsheets, etc.) to get up to

speed. Chase further noted that integrated computer-

related curricula are becoming common at the early

stages of a design program, and yet integration is a

difficult goal to reach. Getting design tutors up to

speed on what digital design tools can contribute is a

constraint to studio success. In his own institution, he

found that independent shorter exercises rather than

large design projects are a better vehicle for introduc-

ing computing tools. One especially productive ap-

proach is to introduce the tools in the context of

communicating design issues through electronic me-

dia. Exploration, presentation, and communication are

the three areas in which a student should be competent

by the end of the first year. By the third year, students

should be expected to use computer-based tools

fluidly. Workshops may be offered at that point to

supply additional skills but not as a substitute for

continuous exposure beginning with the first year.

Chase also argued that basic computer habits need

to be formed in the first year so that the students are in

the right frame of mind to get on to further design

experiences in later years. Thomas Kvan, University

of Hong Kong, questioned the ongoing utility of

teaching areas of CAAD that are continually expand-

ing. There are many traditions in architecture that

need to be respected. For example, does the teaching

of CAAD have any greater right to a place in the

curriculum than an extra class in materials, weath-

erproofing, or structures? Kvan also cited Joseph

Gumnut who in 1944 noted that a proper architecture

curriculum needs 25 years. Today, suggested Kvan,

we probably need 45 years to teach all we hope to

convey to a student. A central problem to educational

programs is how to make room for computer-related


technology and at the same time not displace time-

honored parts of the curriculum. Hannu Penttila,

Helsinki University of Technology, suggested that

with teaching CAAD as we know it will disappear.

Will it happen fast? Penttila speculated probably not.

In the longer term, the goal of a teacher is perhaps to

make their teaching of a subject redundant, to get

knowledge into the mainstream so that there is no

longer a particular importance for continued emphasis

on the same area of knowledge. He also noted that it

would be difficult to rationalize a singular curriculum

for teaching CAAD given the range of approaches

relative to educational institutions, their pedagogy,

and the internal dynamics of their course offerings.

3.2. Considering the changing perception of com-

puters in society

Marc Schnabel, University of Hong Kong, stated

that computing seems to have arrived with unusual

force, and that teaching appears to have followed

technology while technology evolved rapidly. Students

arrive today with considerable sophistication from

watching TV, films, and other sources. Competing with

their expectations and focusing on more fundamental

concepts become tricky in a setting were the media can

be seductive. At the same time, Schnabel noted in his

experience that peer teaching is highly effective for

bringing students up to speed on technology in an

appropriately critical way. He argued that we need to

set up an environment that stimulates students to learn

themselves, and also find a way to reward such self-

learning. We currently have new technologies that are

opening up new modes of communication that can be

integrated into the curriculum. This allows focus on the

central concepts underlying technology and permits us

to reduce time spent on some of the transitory and

mundane steps required to use the tools. Adam Jaki-

mowicz, Technical University Bialystock (Poland),

suggested that the computer is a not just a work station

but rather constitutes a work environment for the

architect. It therefore must be immersed with a variety

of other tools such that moving from paper to digital

media becomes an integral part of design activity.

Jakimowicz called for developing a strong discriminat-

ing sense on good computing as a way of using the

computer more holistically. For example, computer

data proliferation is bad habit that results in lost

information and difficulty with consistency in the

transfer of knowledge. The technology and our use of

it should continually be focused on the primary objec-

tive of supporting design, that is, a well-established

notion of computing priorities might have influence on

how technologies evolve and are used. Jakimowicz

also offered that ‘‘reuse’’ in design is essential and

provides a distinct opportunity for computing.

3.3. The challenge of teaching computer-based

methods

Bob Martens, Vienna University of Technology,

recalled a keynote address by Guillermo Vasquez de

Velasco, Texas A&M University, at eCAADe 2001 in

Helsinki. Vasquez de Velasco had suggested that hand

drawing is demanding of enlightening effort. Design is

in a traditional sense the process of taking hand

drawing to public life. At the current roundtable,

Vasquez de Velasco added that we need to remember

the whole dynamic process and not focus on one step.

Different schools have embraced computing at differ-

ent times depending on their phase of change. eCAADe

may have a role in leadership but seeing a CAD

curriculum as critical to curricula and the world of

computing is obsolete. Pervasive computing is here,

and so pervasive applications in design are becoming

essential and need to be understood from a broader

perspective. Earl Mark speculated that our educational

culture has in many instances adopted not design

computing but geometrical modeling and visualization,

and there is a great distinction. Geometrical modeling

and visualization are but one visible aspect of design

computing. Schools may have in a sense latched on to a

relatively trite aspect the technology, called it CAD,

and incorporated it into the curriculum. Yet, the broader

world of computer-aided design is hardly limited to a

particular visualization paradigm, and the potential lies

well outside the context of a computer itself as a self-

contained tool. Chase returned to the theme of what

students are predisposed to in the years prior to entering

the university and their preexisting exposure in the

culture around them. He suggested that the students

come in with knowledge of the tools but not necessarily

a sense of how to use them in design. He believes we

need to reorient them to use the tools for design in the

same sense that we need to reorient them on how to use

a pencil for design even with their longstanding knowl-


edge of the tool. Martens pointed out that at Vienna

University of Technology roughly 50 years ago, the

study guide was but three pages long. From our

perspective today, the concept of architectural training

back then seemed relatively simple. Today, with all the

technology and subjects areas added over the past 50

years, it would seem that any guide needs to be at least

multiple times as many pages long. Still, not everything

in the past was so simple or can be so easily pigeon-

holed. For example, in a few universities today, we still

teach ‘descriptive geometry’ but it is gone in most

schools. We need to take more discriminating and

integrative steps rather than additive approaches.

3.4. Higher-level CAAD education and design theory

Rivka Oxman, Technion Institute of Technology,

suggested that our role as educators is not a simple

choice of either teaching skills or teaching design and

architecture. We must combine the two. We must teach

students how to explore representational paradigms

that will challenge old ways in design thinking, from

concept to completion. The question she has raised is

whether the pedagogical criterion for a good design

teacher today is all that different than before. At the

same time, having new more powerful tools allows us

to change the way we think and teach. We can not

return to previous ways of teaching since the profession

shows us that there are different ways of exploiting the

new media to arrive at new designs. New ways for

thinking about design should be integrated and reex-

amined in parallel to the exploration of new technology

and digital means. This suggests a broadening view for

educating the ‘‘thinking eye’’ of the designer, that is

reflecting the way visual design presentations can be

perceived in digital media [2]. Earl Mark noted that

over the longer term, changes have been continually

made to the curriculum that have had little to do with

computing. The elimination of ‘descriptive geometry’

was a loss since it removed a way of seeing. This is a

loss that occurred well before the arrival of CAD, and

so it raises more general issues about curriculum

change than those raised by computing alone. We can

look retrospectively at a range of subject areas that are

no longer present and wonder if this one or that one

could not reappear. Note for example that ‘descriptive

geometry’ was not merely a tool to be employed in the

service of design but rather it enhanced our understand-

ing of 3D space. The Italian scholar Sebastiano Serlio

in his famous book on geometry discussed learning

from the ‘‘flowers’’ of Euclidian geometry as a means

to thinking in 3D space. Similarly, the authors of a more

recent book on ‘descriptive geometry’ used through the

late 1940s (Kenison and Bradley, Descriptive Geome-

try, published 1914), emphasized that it furthered our

understanding of size and proportion. We can see

where highly automated computer visualization may

undermine these skills through removing the need for

intimate hand–eye exercises, or on the other hand,

provide an opportunity to reengage them. As we revisit

the curricula, we can take on an approach that revital-

izes as much as it may potentially displace.

3.5. Models of teaching

Schnabel raised the question of how to characterize

good teaching. Students know the difference between

good and bad teaching, and they also seem to have a

sense of what may be deserving of a good grade in their

own work. Schnabel suggested that the students’ abil-

ities to discriminate means that they can be motivated

to explore and refine according to their own developing

self-standards.We get the best results from students not

simply by training them in skills but rather by leading

them to rely upon their own evolving good sense in

exploration. Similarly, the more enlightened use of

computers in practice shows us that exploration leads

to the most promising new design opportunities. Kvan

discussed the role of architecture as knowledge. He

postulated that we could view the way we teach as

knowledge gathering and manipulation. We seem at

times stuck in the neoclassical world of fixed cannons.

This could be a major roadblock to architectural edu-

cation as a process of exploration. Jakimowicz sug-

gested that the problem of ‘design’ is at times treated as

one that can be handed down. We have as colleagues

the first obligation to train students to be the masters.

We cannot give this authority to students and still be

arrogant masters of the field.

3.6. Consistency in design value systems

Marc Muylle, Higher Institute of Architectural

Sciences at Antwerp, observed that if design teachers

are not familiar with the potential of the tools then

they cannot teach the students to be creative in


applying them. We have also a bad habit, he said, of

changing the curriculum every 3 years. Further still,

we try to squeeze hours out of some subjects and add

in new classes. Students as a result lose other skills

such as sketching. We have changed our admission

criteria to reflect these changes to such a degree that

we now admit students with less strength in commu-

nication skills such as sketching. Whereas at one time,

sketching ability used to be required, it is no longer

needed. While we see CAD as a tool to be a medium

of representation, it too will become obsolete unless

we change the ways we perceive the tool. It will

perhaps only then have a new purpose. Per Korte-

gaard, Aarhus School of Architecture, added that we

should also focus our processes of representation on

good architecture. We should note that communica-

tion is important, and that sketching is an important

part of communication. But sketching is not a discon-

nected activity to seeing. Rather, the act of sketching

informs design. Changing scale and redrawing leads

us to make decisions. Light and proportions must be

examined and this can happen through sketching. Yet,

at computer and design conferences, students do not

necessarily deal with all the aspects of architecture.

We do not typically show good architecture at these

conferences but we seem to instead focus on the

computer models as finalized objects. To get beyond

this, we must encourage variation in modes of repre-

sentation with larger objectives in mind. Producing

drawings is not a fragmented step in the purpose of

learning architecture. Once students purchase their

own tools they need to integrate the tools into the

design process. When the tools are isolated in their

exploration, the integration does not take place. To

help them we must focus on the investigation of

relevant problems with these tools.

3.7. Design intentions and media

Martens wondered if Rapid Prototyping is not

untypical of new technology that might be used to

change the way we consider architecture. Schnabel

observed that the past models could be built by hand

and this physical form informed the student. Digital

models until recently did not. Rapid Prototyping gets

beyond this limitation. Vasquez de Velasco suggested

that in the past, there was clear distinction between

CAAD and Computer Aided Architectural Instruction

(CAAI). The distinction has softened. Perhaps, this

means we are moving beyond tools to more general

emphasis on knowledge and a better sense of the

adequate use of resources. The act of making things

by hand and physically is different than just assembling

a digital model. Still, Jakimowicz suggested that the

way we were taught architecture may not be the right

way to teach today. The new tools offer new opportu-

nities. It should not be assumed that emulating the old

tools and their related method is better. Schnabel

concluded that how you teach the students to explore

the tools is the key. New tools come along (such as

photography) and offer challenges to our teaching. We

should then challenge the students to independently

investigate ways to use them.

3.8. Further notes on exploration context for design

Tom Maver, University of Strathclyde, offered his

sense that Rapid Prototyping serves most directly as a

tool for exploration. He cited a speech by Frank Gehry

at RIBA on how information technology (IT) is now

giving architects back the control of architecture in

terms of direct access to fabrication. Chase pushed for

more complete integration throughout design process-

es as the key. We must change the way we teach

architecture to fully make the connection with poten-

tials of IT. Penttila cautioned that we cannot avoid

teaching the tools but we must nevertheless get back

to the basics of relating them to our design intentions.

Kvan gave the broad view that architecture is exciting,

a medium for integrating many disciplines, including

but not limited to computing. It is a reason many of us

came to the discipline. Computing is but one of many

technologies we have come to embrace. Mark sug-

gested that problem definition is general to our

perception of architecture. Identify the problems to

be solved in design and consider what tools we use in

the context of an exploration of the problems. CAD is

not a distinct technology in this sense.

The roundtable discussion was summarized by

Oxman as a need for Schools to come to terms with

the following three issues:

1. School philosophy—does it separate or integrate

the curriculum?

2. Design philosophy—is it bound by the traditional

or admit to changing approaches?


3. Pedagogical philosophy—do we view architecture

as building or architecture as design (e.g., knowl-

edge, cognitive process, ideas)?

4. Conclusions

The roundtable discussion at the eCAADe 2002

Annual Conference in Warsaw examined the state of

computer-aided design in the curriculum relative to its

history and early expectations in the discipline. Schools

of Architecture in Europe, the Middle East, Asia, and

North America were represented by the various partic-

ipants in the discussion. Most of the participants have

agreed that the use of computers in design school

curricula is no longer a unique or novel condition.

Yet, perceptions varied regarding the evolving place of

computers and their influence on the culture of the

design schools. Some common assumptions seem to be

held among the participants in the discussion:

o 3D modeling has the potential to be adapted in a

more thoughtful way than might be otherwise

envisioned as a basic design tool.

o Curricula are becoming increasingly packed with

requirements leaving little room for expansion and

innovation that affects the inclusion of new

computer-related subjects.

o The computer is a part of the continuum of design

media, and its role as a physical modeling and

paper-based media should be extended.

o Design teachers are in general still backward in their

assessment of the technology and its role in the

curriculum, working in the conceptual framework

of traditional media rather than exploring a chang-

ing conceptual basis for design.

o Integration of computer use in education must be

addressed each year in the pathway of a student

moving through the design curriculum.

While the state of practice in education is not an

entrenched position, there may be still a suspicion of

computer-mediated processes. This is especially true

where some level of abstraction passes beyond the level

of concrete visualization that can take form in the

mind’s eye of the designer.

Participants agreed that differences in local culture

and context contribute to different views of computers

in curricula. Yet, within the different contexts, some

common questions about what is necessary to ensure

that computer-aided design related to design knowl-

edge is engaged in substantive and potentially more

enlightened ways. Encouraging open exploration is

well established within the tradition of design and its

appropriateness to harnessing new technology is

reassuring. Corbusier proposed his own modular on

a take it or leave it basis. It was a technology that

would be validated or invalidated by exploration and

relevance in the service of Per Kortegaard’s ‘‘good

architecture.’’

5. Uncited references

[3]

[4]

Acknowledgements

The session was initially proposed and organized

by Earl Mark, Bob Martens, and Rivka Oxman, with

contributing written position statements by Scott C.

Chase, University of Strathclyde (UK), Thomas Kvan

(University of Hong Kong), Hannu Penttila (Helsinki

University of Technology), and Marc Schnabel

(University of Hong Kong). The roundtable session

was not recorded other than through the note taking

by Thomas Kvan. Earl Mark served as a correspond-

ing author for this paper on The second round at

eCAADe 2002. It would be difficult to catch the entire

flow of discussion and not every comment is included

here, as in the normal course of conversation there are

inconsistencies and tangents that might detract from a

coherent report. Participant’s comments here are

paraphrased rather than quoted, with apologies in

advance with respect to any person not correctly

reflected.

References

[1] E. Mark, B. Martens, R. Oxman, The Ideal Computer Curric-

ulum, Architectural Information Management (eCAADe-Con-

ference Proceedings), Helsinki (Finland), Helsinki University

of Technology, Otamedia Oy, Espoo, 2001, pp. 168–175.

[2] R. Oxman, The Thinking Eye: Visual Re-Cognition in Design


Emergence, Design Studies, The International Journal for De-

sign Research in Engineering, Architecture, Products and Sys-

tems vol. 23, Elsevier, 2002, pp. 135–164.

[3] E. Mark, A Prospectus on Computers Throughout the Curricu-

lum, Promise and Reality (eCAADe Conference Proceedings),

Bauhaus-Universitat Weimar (Germany), VDG Wiemar, 2000,

pp. 77–83.

[4] B.-J. Novitski (Ed.), Integrating Computers into the Architec-

tural Curriculum, ACADIA Conference Proceedings, 1987.

Documents

Preliminary stages of CAAD education