TEACHING ARCHITECTURAL TECHNOLOGY WITH TECHNOLOGY (TEATWIT) Tom Sanya1 1
University of Cape Town (SOUTH AFRICA)
[email protected]
Abstract This paper is a reflection on a project that used Computer Aided Design (CAD) modelling to enhance the learning of architectural technology for 2 nd year undergraduate students at the University of Cape Town in the 2010 academic year. A valuable grasp of architectural technology requires understanding of the subject as a construction system with technical limitations that offer creative freedom – a delicate balancing act between convention and innovation. Two buildings of technical and spatial-aesthetic repute were chosen for three dimensional CAD modelling: Fallingwater House (located in USA and designed by Frank Lloyd in 1936) and Die Es (located in South Africa and designed by Gabriel Fagan in 1965). The CAD models, taken from foundation to final roof finish, were elemental and sequentially incremental thus capable of illustrating, at varying scales, individual building components and how they relate to each other as well as to the whole building. The models were made into didactic resources comprised of (powerpoint-compatible) images and short movie clips. The representation precision, scale-shift and viewpoint-change possibilities of the dynamic 3D CAD models enhance understanding of building technology per se as well as comprehension of the reciprocal linkage of technical detailing to architectural spatialaesthetics. A significant number of students who engaged in the learning activities based on the created didactic materials displayed a holistic understanding of architectural technology that superseded a reductivist view of the subject. Keywords: architectural technology, spatial-aesthetics, Computer Aided Design (CAD), teaching and learning.
1
INTRODUCTION
The project presented in this paper is part of a broader pedagogical conception that successful teaching and learning of architectural technology requires competencies that cut across several levels of education in the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy (BRT) of education [1]. The paper starts by presenting architectural technology as conceptualised in the 2nd year Bachelor of Architectural Studies course in 2010 at the University of Cape Town. In so doing, it uses the RBT to discuss the course aims and teaching strategies. The paper then introduces a didactic CAD project before discussing the impacts it had on teaching and learning in the course. The final part is a reflection that looks at the pros and cons of using CAD as extrapolated from this particular experience
2
PEDAGOGICAL APPROACH
Architectural technology is the technical means by which a building is physically realised. It embodies both processes and products. The products, subjected to particular processes, stand in particular relationships to each other to give a building its structural, technical and functional integrity as well as a spatial-aesthetic quality1[2]. Structural integrity is the need for a building as a whole and in all its parts to safely withstand applied loads without risk of failure or collapse. Technical integrity is used in this paper to include the layering, connection and joining of several (sub-)components; while functional
1
the term spatial-aesthetic(s) is used in this paper to refer the aesthetics and spatial qualities of building – which are difficult to totally separate.
integrity refers to performance of the components in terms of response to environmental factors (moisture, humidity, heat, light, noise) and human use. In addition to structure, technical and functional roles, an architectural component as a unique element and in combination with others, has an expressive role that impacts the spatial-aesthetic quality of the building. The main aim of the course was to get the students to acquire a comprehensive understanding of architectural technology. For this to happen, the course was organised on three related tracks: (i) learning from the existing (ii) application in design (iii) drawing as a way of thinking about and communicating architectural technology. The first two tracks were considered core with the third one being a complimentary albeit important one. To explain the kind of knowledge required in the core tracks, it is pertinent to refer to the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy (RBT) of education. The taxonomy relates different kinds of knowledge (the knowledge track) to the cognitive processes that can be used to acquire the knowledge. The Knowledge Dimension
Cognitive Processes Remember
Understand
Apply
Analyse
Evaluate
Create
Factual knowledge Conceptual knowledge Procedural knowledge Metacognitive knowledge Table 1: Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy [1] The above RBT is now used to present the learning that the students were expected to experience in the course.
2.1
Learning from the Existing
For this course, emphasis was placed on conceptual, meta-cognitive knowledge and procedural knowledge. At the meta-cognitive level, it was recognised that existing technical solutions for buildings are innumerable and many more are still being created. Moreover, architectural detailing is very much dependent on architectural intention so much so that for the same design constraints different architects can come up with different technological solutions. Additionally, a technological solution that is successful for one project in a given context can turn-out to be inappropriate for another context. To deal with these vagaries, a constructivist approach to teaching and learning was adopted whereby knowledge was seen to be distributed in people (the lecturer, the students themselves, others), publications (books, internet, papers), buildings and drawings of buildings [3]. As opposed to teaching specific technical details, the idea was to enable the students to learn how to learn from the numerous sources. Delivery of frameworks of analysis and evaluation of architectural technology was therefore paramount with reference to specific technical details only as examples. This was seen as a way to make the students self-sufficient learners [4]. The constructivist approach was aimed not to stultify but to open up numerous possibilities for self-driven learning. Conceptual knowledge is about understanding parts and how they relate to each other to form a whole [1]. In teaching this course, the building was conceptualised as a whole made of components, which together, under a specific system of construction, constitute the whole. To enable distinction and correlation between the structural, technical, functional and spatial-aesthetic requirements simultaneously occurring in different components and in the building as a whole, a framework to guide the teaching and learning was formulated. The framework was encapsulated in this hierarchical
relationship: conceptualising-structuring-layering-detailing. In this framework, a structural system is chosen only in as much as it furthers the building’s main architectural idea. The structural system in turn determines types of building components and materials, as well as the specific technical details of assembly. Moreover the details have to be congruent with the structural system and enhance the architectural concept. This particular approach was significant in enabling understanding of the creative link between architectural technology and spatial-aesthetics.
2.2
Application in Design
Architectural technology is not an end in itself. Therefore memorising and mere remembering were secondary to the need for students to apply the knowledge in design of own buildings and details. The application process involves combining ideas, concepts and knowledge from different sources to create a new whole that satisfies the structural, technical and functional requirements in a way that remains true to or even augments the spatial-aesthetic quality of the building. The kind of knowledge required encompasses the conceptual and procedural categories of the RBT. The procedural knowledge (knowledge of “how to…”) is what is required of students in designing (or composing) an own building that is functionally and structurally sound and spatial-aesthetically appealing.
2.3
Interest, Inspiration and Ease of Learning
Good aims are not sufficient to get the students engaged. It is necessary to get them interested in and inspired by the subject. Feedback from the previous year found that the course was found to be uninspiring, while students did not address the given assignments to the expected level of understanding – meaning that they found the subject generally difficult. A tangential aim was therefore to make the course a lot more interesting and inspiring as well as to make the course content easier to learn.
3 3.1
CAD IN THE COURSE The CAD Project
The CAD project was aimed at fulfilling the above teaching objectives under the overall constructivist pedagogy of enabling the students to learn how to learn. Because it enables virtual construction of the building, CAD was assessed to have the capability to facilitate the teaching of architectural technology holistically in such a way as to keep focus on the whole building while also making explicit the (sub)components and the relationships between them. In this method, each (sub-)component could be studied to great depth without losing an idea of the bigger picture. For the CAD modelling, it was important to choose buildings of acclaimed architectural merit in order to demonstrate the link between building technology and spatial-aesthetics, and also to stimulate the students’ interest. The two chosen building were Fallingwater House and Die Es. The Fallingwater House is located in the United States of America and was in the 1990s voted the best work of architecture ever. It was designed by the legendary architect Frank Lloyd Wright. It was constructed between 1935-1936 [5]. The site, a steeply sloping river bank was challenging. The building appears to grow out of the riverbank with the existing bedrock rock used as one of the four base piers. In its construction technology, Wright made radical use of reinforced concrete (a relatively novel material at that time) to dramatically cantilever the building over the river. The daring architectural technology was matched by the novelty of spatial-aesthetic expression with precariously hovering pristine white forms enclosing interior spaces that flow into each other, to the outside and to the nature beyond. Via a delicate hanging staircase on steel rods, the interior is brought right down to the river. Undoubtedly, this building elevated the then nascent Modernist spatial-aesthetic to greater heights and itself became a pinnacle of Modern Architecture. It is a building in which groundbreaking technology makes possible radical architectural expression. With lucidity, the Fallingwater House makes apparent the reciprocal linkage between architectural technology and spatial-aesthetics. Die Es, less known worldwide, is a famous building in South Africa. Located in Cape Town by the ocean shores in Camps Bay, it was designed by Architect Gabriel Fagan. It was built in 1965 largely by Fagan and his family. Though using simple locally available brick (for the walls), timber (for the roof) and simple concrete floor slabs, careful on-site placement and proportioning created a building that in spatial-aesthetic quality is suited to modern living but that is still responsive to the local vernacular. This building is a demonstration that simple everyday materials and technical details can
be composed into a good work of architecture. The roof is perhaps its most innovative component. The roof expresses the significance of considering architectural details not in isolation but rather as part of the conceptualising-structuring-layering-detailing hierarchy. To respond to the waves of the adjacent ocean, the roof was conceptualised as a wavy form. In its structuring, the wavy form was interpreted as a hyperbolic paraboloid – which is, other factor being constant, the strongest type of surface possible [6]. In fact, the roof proposed by architect Fagan was so thin that structural engineer declined to certify it. The hyperbolic paraboloid was realised with closely parked timber beams (serving as structure and surface) which were covered with waterproof glue and neoprene. For each building, a separate CAD model was created. Each model was elemental in the sense that it broke down the building to its basic components (such as foundation, plinths, walls, windows, floors, roofs) – with these sequentially brought together virtually to show logic of construction and detailing. Moreover, each component, just as in the real building, was built-up of several sub-components which, at a bigger scale, could be made explicit and explained.
Fig 1: Examples of CAD created images: Fallingwater House
Thus, it was possible to undertake virtual construction from (sub-)components to components to the entire building while making explicit the functional, structural, technical roles and spatial-aesthetics considerations in the detailing. Conversely, it was possible to disaggregate the building to study at a bigger scale the (sub-)components and their connections. CAD was found to be a potent tool for creating clear, easy-tounderstand didactic material for architectural technology because of the possibilities of aggregation and disaggregation, opportunities for viewpoint and scale-shifts, and the options for sectional cuts to expose construction elements that would otherwise remain hidden. Didactic materials based on the CAD models were made into PowerPoint slides for delivery in the lecture-room. A short movie-clip was also made for each building. And resources were made available online.
Fig 1: Examples of CAD created images: Die Es
3.2
Effects of the CAD Project on Learning
As a teaching approach, CAD was part of a wider repertoire of teaching tools. For that reason, its effects on learning cannot be fully isolated. However, some specific exercises were set bearing in mind the CAD-based component of the teaching. A significant portion of the assignments presented here below relied heavily on application of CAD. Each of the assignments was in the form of a tutorial happening one afternoon every week for a couple of weeks.
3.2.1 Analysing and Understanding of Existing Buildings In one assignment, students in teams were required to get an existing building and draw a 3dimensional detail of its façade at a scale of 1:20 or bigger. The cognitive processes required of the students in this assignment were application of the previously learnt conceptual ideas to the analysis and understanding of an existing building. This involved extensive targeted research and, because not all information is available, making of reasonable suppositions. For instance, to make the 3dimensional detail drawings, students had to use available information which was mainly 2dimensional drawings, pictures and verbal descriptions. Where the information was missing, they had to make logical inferences to come to plausible conclusions. Additionally, the assignment was aimed at honing the students’ skills in the use of CAD for architectural technical drawing and presentation – with emphasis on drawing conventions and annotation. This project was meant to encourage the student to learn from self, from other students and lecturers, and from existing artefacts and literature (including the internet). The project was on the whole well-done with most students demonstrating a comprehensive understanding of such buildings as Glenn Murkutt’s Ball Eastaway House, Jo Noero’s Red District Museum and Tadao Ando’s Imai Hospital Day-care. Concurrently a class visit was organised to the Hout Bay Library in Cape Town. Designed by Roelof Sarel Uytenbogaardt, it is a significant building in South Africa. After the visit, students were required to discuss the building in an online forum. The discussions were structured in such a way as to encourage application of conceptual knowledge to the analysis and understanding of the building based on the guiding framework of conceptualising-structuring-layering-detailing. In the discussions, apart from conceptual and analytical cognitive skills, students also had to demonstrate evaluation
capabilities since they were required to discuss the building’s appropriateness for context and encouraged to be critical of the architect's choices. The online discussion went so well that it was considered by the University of Cape Town’s Centre for Educational Technology as an exemplar for online fora.
3.2.2 Application in Design Students’ procedural knowledge was also tested. Architectural technology is not an end in itself but is a means to design. Students were given the opportunity to apply the factual and conceptual knowledge they had garnered from various sources to actual design of a building. Cooperating with design studio was important in this regard to, right from initial design stages to final detailing, encourage exploration of the link between the structural, technical, functional and spatial-aesthetic aspects. Students had the opportunity to deal with architectural technology not as a lobotomised entity but as an inseparable part of wider whole. The assignment required sensitive insertion of a row-house in a historic downtown site. In the design process, the students were encouraged to explore the idea that choice of architectural technology can very much be constrained by spatial-aesthetic intention and vice-versa. Through a structural drawing, large-scale sectional cuts and 3-dimensional detail drawings, the students were challenged to demonstrate creative use of architectural technology.
4
REFLECTION
This section looks at the strengths and weaknesses in using CAD as a teaching and learning resource. Starting with the strengths, the imitation of the real as discussed above is very useful because it enables scale-shifts, viewpoint changes and section-cuts to reveal hidden details. This should generally make architectural technology more easily comprehensible. Additionally, CAD, because of precision of drawing, can be used as means to get the students to engage in learning architectural technology while creating future didactic resources. In other words, with good guidance, students can use CAD to enhance their own learning and (some) products of their assignments can be selected for future teaching. A related point is that CAD-based content can be easily manipulated on the computer and can thus enable quick and wide distribution via the internet. For example, the didactic materials describes in this paper are now available via OpenContent. Such materials, if carefully generated can be used to teach across several architectural subjects (technology, history and theory, environment and design). A further advantage in using CAD is that precise 3-dimensional drawings can be made, relative to hand drawing, more speedily. Moreover such drawings look more real owing to the greater precision of CAD - thus making the link between technology and spatial-aesthetic quality readily apparent. However, a possible problem with CAD for teaching and learning is in eliminating the possibility to use drawing as a way of thinking. Dragging and clicking the computer mouse is not the same as drawing by hand with a pencil, for instance. CAD can potentially eliminate the procedural connection between the hand and the brain - a connection that many think is important for the procedural knowledge of design thinking. Furthermore, CAD if not well used, can lead to focusing on image instead of content. Virtual reality looks too easy. For example, the loud messy world of construction is reduced to a silent neat slides or the soothing sound track of a short movie clip. There is therefore the danger that CAD can lead to cognitive bias – whereby students get deluded into thinking that just because it looks so easy on paper it must be easy to (a) design, draw and present (b) construct.
5
CONCLUSION
CAD is a powerful tool that can enhance the teaching and learning experience of architectural technology to show how technical detailing opens up exciting design possibilities. However, careful implementation is needed to ensure that students actually get to engage with didactic material and assignments to a depth that is more than mere obfuscating imagery. Using CAD-based resources in combination with different approaches is perhaps the prudent approach. Ultimately for this course, the effect of CAD was to be judged from the factual, conceptual, procedural and meta-cognitive knowledge exhibited by the students in the understanding of existing works of architecture and design of new ones.
REFERENCES [Arial, 12-point, bold, left alignment] [1] Krathwohl, D.R. (2002). A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An Overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4). [2] Emitt, S., Olie, J. and Schmid, P. (2004). Principles of Architectural Detailing. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Victoria (Australia). [3] Biggs, J (1999). Teaching for Quality Learning at University. SRHE and Open University Press, Buckingham. [4] Cowan, J. (1998). On Becoming an Effective University Teacher: Reflection in Action. SRHE and Open University Press, Buckingham. [5] Ford, E.R. (2003). The Details of Modern Architecture (Vol. 1). The MIT Press, Cambridge (Massachusetts). [6] Salvador, M. 1990. The Strength of Architecture: Why Buildings Stand Up. W.W. Norton & Company, New York.
