The (in)secure position of the design jury towards computer generated presentations

Abstract

The tendency towards computer aid in design presentations differs in academia than in the practicing field; practice seems to welcome computer aid in presentation, whereas in academia there seems to be a dilemma. In this study, we approach this duality based on our teaching experience within an interior architecture curriculum. First, we unfold the problematic to identify the contributing factors, then we observe the tendencies through a questionnaire with design students and interviews with design instructors, and finally we project upon our findings. We claim that the contributing factors to the problematic are: loss of author identity, problems of authenticity, and proficiency of the instructors in computers. Also we claim that although the transitional period of accommodating computer tools in design education in terms of presentation seems to be over, an adjustment period is starting anew. One of the powerful aspects of this period is not allowing hand skills to fade away.

Le codesign comme nouvelle approche pédagogique dans les ateliers de conception : étude exploratoire à travers le vécu des étudiants

“…(Salman et al, 2014). Ceci peut causer une frustration dans le cas où les étudiants ou les enseignants ne maitrisent pas très bien ces logiciels (Basa & Şenyapili, 2005). Et si la fixation sur la première idée chez l'étudiant devient plus dominante , cela peut le rendre résistant à la réflexion sur les propositions de l'enseignant, ce qui limite prématurément l'espace de design et restreint la nouveauté (Jansson & Smith, 1991).…”

Juries as Innovation in an Instructional Design and Technology Program: A Saga of Continuous Improvement Efforts

“…A third faculty member held degrees in journalism and technical writing; within these academic programs, computer-produced products commonly were critiqued and assessed through a jury-like process. Indeed, where computer-produced products are created, juried approaches to assessment are common (see, for instance, Basa & Şenyapılı, 2005). Because three out of six faculty members had familiarity with juries, the idea for juries was privileged with a type of cultural capital that pushed their use forward as an appropriate innovation within the IDT program.…”

A Comparison of Learning Experience, Workload, and Outcomes in Interior Design Education Using a Hand or Hybrid Approach

“…While its time and energy saving nature has better accommodated its integration in design practice (Sanders, 1996), research also identified limitations of CAD technology. Specifically, they require technical proficiency for production (Basa & Şenyapth, 2005), yet, computer renderings often appear sterile. Further, they may provide unnecessary information (Pable, 2006).…”

“…Reflecting the increasing interest in mixed use or hybrid design approach , most studies on design tools within design professions focused on either digital technology only (Gibson, 2007; Lee, 2009; Lyon et al., 2008; McConnell & Waxman, 1999; McLain‐Kark, 2000; Seidler, 2009) or conducted comparative analysis between hand and digital media (Basa & Şenyapth, 2005; Brandon & McLain‐Kark, 2001; North & Miller, 2002; Pable, 2006). In addition, some research has integrated hand and digital methods in design education (Dorta et al., 2008; Kim, 2008).…”

“…On the other hand, students lacked the needed guidance on how to select and coordinate different tool sets in design practice. In addition, the conventional method of delivering digital techniques emphasizes the representation aspects (Basa & Şenyapth, 2005), but lacks exposure to the simulation and analytical capabilities for assisting design decision making. Such a teaching approach failed to reveal the full capacity of digital technologies in hybrid design practice (Zuo et al., 2010).…”