sjes-10022

The Effect of Conventional and Digital Drawing Tools 
on Imagination in Architectural Design Education

Amjed M. Ali, Hawar Himdad [Architectural Department-University of Sulaimani / Architectural Department-University of Koya]


Received : 1/10/2014, Accepted : 3/6/2015

DOI Link: https://doi.org/10.17656/sjes.10022

ABSTRACT

This research investigates the effects of digital drawing tools on imagination in comparison to the conventional drawing tools within the educational frame of architectural design. The significance of this study lays in the critique on the utilization of different digital drawing tools in the educational frame, seeking to find the main effects the different types of tools have on students' imagination. This study has taken imagination faculty as factor since the highest level of mental abilities is found in this specific faculty and design students cannot permit any obstacle in front of their imagination design capabilities. The problem upon which this study is based, beside the fact that the digital technology is a dialectic issue in the educational framework, its effects are also unknown as far as the students' imagination capacities are concerned. The case study involved the comparison between two groups; one group relying strongly on digital tools while the other depends merely on conventional tools, herein are students' imagination capacities as well as drawing capabilities investigated. Also the teaching staff opinions were taken from each student group by means of a questionnaire. This study has found that there is a positive relationship between drawing and imagination capabilities. And students using conventional drawing tools merely have higher imagination capabilities score as well as drawing capabilities score according to a test and evaluation form designed specifically for this study. The majority of teaching staff found that students with higher capabilities in drawing by conventional tools encompass also higher capability in imagination.


KEYWORDS: Architectural Design, Design Imagination, Conventional Drawing Tool, Digital Drawing tool.

REFERENCES
A
1. Acuna, A., and Sosa, R., (2011), “The Complementary Role of Representations in Design Creativity: Sketches and Models”, In Taura, T., Nagai, Y., Design Creativity 2010. London: Springer Verlag, pp. 265-270.
2. Baskinger, M., Nam, K., (2006), “Visual Narratives: The Essential Role of Imagination in the Visualization Process”, Australian Computer Society, Inc. Asia Pacific Symposium on Information Visualization 2006, Japan. Conferences in Research and Practice in Information Technology, Vol. 60.
3. Bates-Brkljac N., (2010), “Artistic representations of architectural design schemes: Forms, Compositions and Styles”, TRACEY: Drawing and Technology December 2010 
4. Beaney, M., (2010), “Imagination And Creativity”, The open University Publishing, Buckinghamshire
5. Cantrell, B. and Michael, W., (2010), “Digital Drawing for Landscape Architecture: Contemporary Techniques and Tools for Digital Representation in Site Design”, published by John Wiley and Sons, New Jersey
6. Ching, F., (1990), “Drawing: a creative process”, Published by John Wiley & sons.
7. Cooper, D., (2007), “Drawing and Perceiving; Real- world Drawing for Students of Awrchitecture and Design”, Published by John Wiley & Sons.
8. Duarte J., (2009), “Inserting New Technologies in Undergraduate Architectural Curricula A Case Study”, Session 09: Digital Design Education - eCAADe 25
9. Edwards, B., (2008), “Understanding Architecture Through Drawing”, First published 2008 by Taylor & Francis, Oxon
10. Frascari, M., (2011), “Eleven Exercises In The Art Of Architectural Drawing”, Routledge, New York
11. Fraser, I., and Henmi R., (1994). “Envisioning Architecture: An Analysis of Drawing”, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
12. Haapasalo, H., (2000), “Creative computer aided architectural design: An internal approach to the design process”, Academic Dissertation, University of Oulu, Oulu.
13. Karwowski, M. (2008). “Measuring creativity using the Test of Creative Imagination (TCI) Presentation of a new instrument to measure creative potential”, New Educational Review 1
14. Laseau, P., (2001), “Graphic Thinking for Architects & Designers”, John Wiley & Sons, New York
15. Lawson, B., (2004), “What Designers Know”, Elsevier, Design and patents act 1988. 16. Liang C., and Chang C., and Chang Y., and Lihn L., (2012), “The exploration of indicators of imagination”, TOJET; The Turkish online journal of education technology, volume 11, issue 3, july 2012
17. Madea, Y. and Yoon, Y. (2013), “A Meta-Analysis on Gender Differences in Mental Rotation Ability Measured by the Purdue Spatial Visualization Tests: Visualization of Rotations (PSVT:R)”, In “Educational Psychology Review”, (2013), Springer US, Volume 25, Issue 1 , pp. 69-94
18. Palladino, S., (2007), “Tools of the Imagination: Drawing Tools and Technologies from the Eighteenth Century to the Present”, Princeton architectural press, New York
19. Pallasmaa, J., (2011), “The Embodied Image”, John Wiley and Sons, AD Primers, United Kingdom, First Edition.
20. Pallasmaa, J., (2012), “The eyes of the skin: Architecture and the senses”, Published by John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey
21. Pallasmaa, J., (2012), “The Thinking Hand; Existential and Embodied wisdom in Architecture”, John Wiley and Sons, AD Primers, United Kingdom.
22. Ramollaris, E and Dranidis, D, (2007), “StudentUML: An Educational Tool Supporting Object-Oriented Analysis and Design”, In 11th 364 Panhellenic Conference in Informatics, pp.364-373
23. Richards, J., (2013), “Freehand drawing & Discovery: Urban Sketching and Concept Drawing for Designers”, Published by John Wiley and Sons Inc., Foreword by Francis D. K. Ching.
24. Salama A., (2007), “An Exploratory Investigation into the Impact of International Paradigmatic Trends on Arab Architectural Education”, GBER Vol. 6 No.1 pp 31-43
25. Salama A., 2007, “An Exploratory Investigation into the Impact of International Paradigmatic Trends on Arab Architectural Education”, GBER Vol. 6 No.1 pp 31-43
26. Smith, K., (2008), “Architects Sketches: Dialogue and design”, Architectural Press is an imprint of Elsevier, Copyright Kendra Schank Smith.
27. Stewart, M., (2008), “Launching the imagination; A guide to three-dimensional design”, third edition, Published by McGraw-Hill
28. Tschimmel, K., (2011), “Design as a Perception-in- Action Process”, In Taura, T., Nagai, Y., Design Creativity 2010. London: Springer Verlag, pp. 223-230.
29. Tversky, B and Chou, J., (2011), “Design Process and Cognition 2”, In Taura, T., Nagai, Y., Design Creativity 2010. London: Springer Verlag, pp. 208-214
30. Verbeek, P., and Slob, A., (2006), “User Behavior and Technology Development Shaping Sustainable Relations Between Consumers and Technologies”, Springer publishing, Netherlands
31. Ware C., (2008), “Visual thinking for design”, Elsevier Inc. publishing, USA Yee, R., (2013), “Architectural Drawing: A Visual Compendium of Types and Methods”, John Wiley and sons, New Jersey, Fourth Edition.
33. Zeisel, J., (1984), “Inquiry by Design: Tools for Environment-Behavior Research (Environment and Behavior)”, Tankobon hardcover
34. www.aptitute-test.org/visualization skills (Retrieved December 2013)

35 .الم٘وبلجٖ, ًبّض, )2011" ,)همبسًٔ االداء الفكشٕ للوظون فٖ التعل٘ن الوعوبسٕ هب ث٘ي استخذام االسلَة الشلوى ٍاألسلَة التمل٘ذى", هجلٔ ٌّذسٔ الشافذٗي, جبهعٔ هَطل. تأثير أدوات الرسم التقليذية والرقمية على التخيل

FULL TEXT: