Cumincad : CUMINCAD Papers : Search Results

CumInCAD is a Cumulative Index about publications in Computer Aided Architectural Design
supported by the sibling associations ACADIA, CAADRIA, eCAADe, SIGraDi, ASCAAD and CAAD futures

PDF papers
References

Hits 1 to 3 of 3

Reformat results as: short short into frame detailed detailed into frame

_id	49a8
authors	McCall, R., Fischer, G. and Morch, A.
year	1990
title	Supporting Reflection-in-Action in the Janus Design Environment
source	The Electronic Design Studio: Architectural Knowledge and Media in the Computer Era [CAAD Futures ‘89 Conference Proceedings / ISBN 0-262-13254-0] Cambridge (Massachusetts / USA), 1989, pp. 247-259
summary	We have developed a computer-based design aid called Janus, which is based on a model of computer-supported design that we think has significance for the future of architectural education. Janus utilizes a knowledge-based approach to link a graphic construction system to hypertext. This allows the computer to make useful comments on the solutions that students construct in a CAD-like environment. These comments contain information intended to make students think more carefully about what they are doing while they are doing it. In other words, Janus promotes what Donald Schon has called "reflection-inaction" (Schon, 1983). The Janus design environment is named for the Roman god with a pair of faces looking in opposite directions. In our case the faces correspond to complementary design activities we call construction and argumentation. Construction is the activity of graphically creating the form of the solution e.g., a building. Traditionally this has been done with tracing paper, pencils, and pens. Argumentation is the activity of reasoning about the problem and its solution. This includes such things as considering what to do next, what alternative courses of action are available, and which course of action to choose. Argumentation is mostly verbal but partly graphical.
series	CAAD Futures
last changed	1999/04/03 17:58

_id	2e50
authors	Ozersay, Fevzi and Szalapaj, Peter
year	1999
title	Theorising a Sustainable Computer Aided Architectural Education Model
doi	https://doi.org/10.52842/conf.ecaade.1999.186
source	Architectural Computing from Turing to 2000 [eCAADe Conference Proceedings / ISBN 0-9523687-5-7] Liverpool (UK) 15-17 September 1999, pp. 186-195
summary	The dogmatic structure of architectural education has meant that the production and application of new educational theories, leading to educational models that use computer technology as their central medium of education, is still a relatively under-explored area. Partial models cannot deliver the expected bigger steps, but only bits and pieces. Curricula developments, at many schools of architecture, have been carried out within the closed circuit manner of architectural education, through expanding the traditional curricula and integrating computers into them. There is still no agreed curriculum in schools of architecture, which defines, at least conceptually, the use of computers within it. Do we really know what we are doing? In the words of Aart Bijl; 'If I want to know what I am doing, I need a separate description of my doing it, a theory' [Bijl, 1989]. The word 'sustainability' is defined as understanding the past and responding to the present with concern for the future. Applying this definition to architectural education, this paper aims to outline the necessity and the principles for the construction of a theory of a sustainable computer aided architectural education model, which could lead to an architectural education that is lasting.
keywords	Architectural Education, Educational Theories, Computers, Sustainable Models
series	eCAADe
email
last changed	2022/06/07 08:00

_id	b565
authors	Yessios, Chris I. (Ed.)
year	1989
title	New Ideas and Directions for the 1990’s [Conference Proceedings]
doi	https://doi.org/10.52842/conf.acadia.1989
source	ACADIA Conference Proceedings / Gainsville (Florida - USA) 27-29 October 1989, 262 p.
summary	About a year ago, a comment of mine to Bob Johnson that recent Acadia Conferences appeared to be bypassing some of the real issues of CAAD and that the attendants seemed to be missing the opportunity to debate and to argue, landed me a request to be the Technical Chair for this Acadia 89. In spite of an expected heavy load this past year, I could not refuse. I certainly did not realize at the time what it would take to put the technical program of this Conference together: two "calls" for papers, many- many phone calls and the gracious acceptance of three invited speakers and twelve panelists. In response to a recommendation by Pamela Bancroft, last year's Technical Chair, the first call for papers had a deadline which was by about a month earlier than it has been in recent years. This must have found our membership unprepared and generated only thirteen submissions. A second call was issued with the end of July as a deadline. It generated another eleven submissions. Out of that total of twenty-four papers, ten were selected and are presented in this Conference. The selection process was based strictly on averaging the grades given by each of the three referees who blindly reviewed each paper. The names of the reviewers have been listed earlier in this volume and I wish to take this opportunity to wholeheartedly thank them. In most cases the reviewers offered extensive comments which were returned to the authors and helped them improve their papers. Many of the papers have actually been rewritten in response to the reviewers' comments and what are included in these Proceedings are substantially improved versions of the papers originally submitted. This is the way it is supposed to be, but could not be done without the excellent response by the authors. I"hey deserve our sincere thanks. It must be noted that the reviewers were not always in agreement, which should tell us something about the diverse orientations of our members. In the case of at least three papers, one reviewer gave a 0 or 1 (very low) when another gave a 9 or 10 (very high). In these cases the third reviewer gave the deciding grade. In no case was there a need for me to break a tie. Under normal circumstances, these "controversial" papers should have gone out for another cycle of reviews. Time did not permit to do so. However, I feel confident that the papers which have been selected deserve to be heard. It may be worth speculating why it took two calls to generate only 24 submissions when last year we had 42. There are a number of factors which must have had an effect. First of all, the early deadline. Secondly, the theme of this year's Conference was more focussed than it has been in the recent past. In addition, it was quite challenging. Even though the calls also encouraged submissions in areas other than the central theme, they discouraged contributions which might be redundant with past presentations. This must have filtered out presentations about "CAD in the studio" which did not have an orientation distinctively different from what everybody else is doing. Last, but possibly the most decisive factor must have been that, this year, Acadia was in competition with the Futures Conference. It does not take much to observe that more than half of the presentations at the CAAD Futures Conference were given by active Acadia members. Acadia should by all means be delighted that the bi-annual Futures took place in the States this year, but it certainly made our organizational task harder. As a matter of fact, as a record of CAAD happenings in 1989, 1 believe the Proceedings of the two Conferences complement each other and should be read as a pair.
series	ACADIA
email
more	http://www.acadia.org
last changed	2022/06/07 07:49

No more hits.