Abstract:

Research reveals that professional studio-based curricula like architecture and landscape architecture employ problem-based learning to teach critical thinking and creative problem solving. Student learning in the studio includes a range of processes and techniques (analog and digital) for developing and representation of their design solutions. Routinely, models (physical and digital) help students explore concepts of space making and evaluation of their design proposals. This paper presents student reflections of model making using traditional (hand cutting) and technology (laser cutting) methods in a freshman level introductory landscape architecture studio. A course project required students to design a spatial composition for a comfortable outdoor gathering space and construct a 3D physical model as an introduction to making space for people. Project parameters included a minimum of two and a maximum of five different base plane elevations, a minimum of three different vertical heights, an overhead structure, a focal feature that influenced the plan’s organizational structure, and the solution had to be asymmetrical. In previous iterations of this course, the model component was constructed using traditional model making methods of cutting and assembling chipboard, cardboard, or other suitable materials by hand. The course recently gained access to laser cutters and all students received training on the use of the technology. Students could choose to construct their model using traditional, technology, or a combination of those methods. Following project submission, the students wrote a reflection entry on their project as part of a sketchbook exercise. The prompt, “In retrospect, what changes would you make to improve the spatial definition of your plan?” Of the responses (n=18), approximately 83% (n=15) made some reference to their model and/or their model making process. Only two responses (11%) specifically referenced the model making using only traditional methods. An example traditional method comment, “Cutting everything by hand is something I would not change because I can use whatever materials I want. It also felt more special to do it by hand.” Conversely, more than half of the responses specifically referenced their perceived advantages of using the Glowforge (laser cutter/technology). The following two instances cover the sentiment expressed in most of the pro technology responses. “I had cut everything by hand and next time I will be using the Glowforge to make it neater and cleaner,” and “without the Glowforge I would have spent many excruciating hours cutting each piece to perfectionism after which I likely would still consider myself falling short of my high standards. Thankfully, the Glowforge served me well and allowed me to focus on assembling my model”. While the prompt was intended for students to reflect on the quality of the space they designed, the emphasis they attributed to the methods of model making reveal their perception of the role of technology in design education. While there remains a need for traditional methods and approaches to teaching design and its representation, the current technology-oriented students appear to have a clear preference for the integration of technology in their design processes.

Keywords:

Technology, experiential learning, design pedagogy, problem based learning.