THE DRAWING WORKSHOP

Alexandre M. MENEZES1
School of Architecture, Federal University of Minas Gerais – EA.UFMG/ Brazil
Departament of Architecture and Urbanism, Catholic University of Minas Gerais – DAU.PUCMinas/ Brazil
Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, Fumec University– FEA.FUMEC/ Brazil



ABSTRACT: Traditionally, drawing was taught in schools of architecture by a highly skilled ‘drawing master’ working with small groups of students, who learned to mimic the master’s skills by a process of close observation and hours of practice. Whilst it can be argued that aspects of this form of teaching are pedagogically unsound, it is in fact the resourcing of such teaching that has caused its steady demise. However drawing skills are an inextricable part of the reflective and non linear process of representation and understanding that turns ‘idea’ into ‘artifact’ and schools of architecture are faced by a real dilemma of how to equip students with these basic skills within a HE environment of diminishing resources. This paper will describe the process of designing an e-learning package to address this dilemma. It will examine the initial brief for the project, how it was delivered and whether an e-learning environment can successfully be used to teach manual skills. Finally it will look at the additional advantages that such learning environments offer not only in terms of logistic and resources but also in creating more flexible, student centered environments that cater for a variety of learning scenarios and styles.

Keywords: sketching; architectural drawing; architectural representation; drawings
1 – INTRODUCTION
The use of different types of drawings is a characteristic in all areas of design [1-3] and different types of drawings are associated with different stages of the design process [3-5]. The activity of drawing involved in the design process is a highly significant one, because it is an activity conventionalised and personal, shared and private, involving the discovery of forms and their communication [1]. For Fraser and Henmi [1] the drawing activity in design process lies between the imagination of the designer and the design of a product. According to them, drawings are more than passive recipients of their authors’ action. ‘Drawing intervenes between an author and her or his ideas being considered a third presence (p viii)’. In this sense, drawing is not a transparent translation of thought but a medium which influences thought just as thought influences drawing.

In architecture it is well known that different stages of the design process are associated with different types of drawings. Every stage of the process of designing and realizing architecture will generate its own appropriate type of drawing. Early in the design process, loose rough sketches can convey an abstract idea or sense of atmosphere. At a later stage, single line drawings are used to show simple relationships and layouts. As the design process develops, the drawings become more precise and to scale, defining the size, form and layout of the spaces. Gradually, wall thickness and more detailed elements, such as stairs and windows, are added until finally more shorthand technical conventions and dimensions are added to the drawings. Such drawings convey precise information about the construction and materials to be used.

Visual representations are present in all stages of the design process, from early sketches to CAD-rendered drawings. What is relevant is the information about various different types of architectural drawings and their roles during different stages in the design process. Although the style of the drawings may vary from architect to architect, the level of information contained within each type of drawing is generally comparable.

Architects represent their ideas to better understand, test and develop them within their own design processes. Architects communicate in order to persuade, inspire and, perhaps most importantly, to reach a shared agreement (with contractors, clients, consultants, planners etc) about the nature of the built environment they are proposing to add to or alter. The process of making Architecture is one of continuous communication and representation. Although some communication and representation can be achieved verbally, architects rely heavily on visual skills. Their visual skills include drawing, model making, and the generation of virtual environments. Even within today’s world of electronic-imaging tools, drawing still remains at the core of their design and communication process. It provides them with a direct, versatile and intuitive way to communicate and embodies knowledge and skills that are fundamental to the generation of virtual and electronic images.

Architectural drawing can be described as a process of mediation between the internal concern, where the designer represents and understands the idea for him/herself, and the external concern - communicating and negotiating the idea with others. Therefore, drawings are used by the architect to represent more precisely the qualitative aspects of the design in order to progress to a more detailed and precise understanding of his/her design, and to communicate both qualitative and quantitative understanding of the design to the other people involved in the process.




1.1 - Types of architectural drawings
Architectural drawings have been analysed by several researchers [1, 2, 6-8] and basically belong to two different Projection Systems: Cylinder and Conical. What is relevant for this work is the information that depending on the angle of projection, this can result in various different types of architectural drawings. Fraser and Hemni [1] analysed architectural drawings and presented three types grouped according to the projections systems: orthogonal, axonometric and perspective drawings. Ching [7] also present the same three distinct types of drawing systems that he called: multiview, paraline and perspective drawings. Porter and Goodman’s [6] classification system also use these three types of drawings called: orthographic projections, axonometric and perspective. All these drawing systems result from the way a three-dimensional object is projected onto a two-dimensional plane of projection. For Ching [7] this is the central task of architectural drawing: representing three-dimensional forms and spatial environments on a two dimensional surface.

Orthogonal drawings are drawings where the projection lines are all parallels and orthogonal to the picture plane. The results are 2D drawings where only two dimensions are accurately measured in each drawing, as it uses two axes of measurement. In plan, the axes measure length and width, while in section and elevation the axes measure width and height. Ching [7] points out that ambiguity of depth is inherent in any orthographic projection as the 3rd dimension is flattened onto the picture plane. For him, one of the greatest advantages of using orthographic projections is to be able to describe facets of form parallel to the picture plane without foreshortening.

In order to understand the three-dimensional condition of a design from these orthographic drawings, it seems to be necessary to view several related orthogonal projections to mentally construct a three-dimensional model. That is why plans, elevations and sections are often studied and presented together as combined views. For this reason, the need for several orthographic projections is apparent, Ching [7] uses the term ‘multiview drawings’ to describe these series of orthographic projections necessary to fully accurately describe a three-dimensional object. Orthographic projection though vital to the work of an architect is an abstract and, at times, confusing method of drawing a 3-D environment. Also, any curved surface or sloped surface not parallel to the drawing plane will be foreshortened and will not resemble how they appear in reality – hence the strange distortion of a pitched roof in elevation.

Axonometric drawings depict the three dimensions – length, width and height -in a single drawing. In contrast with orthogonal drawings that use two dimensions in each construction, they use three axes for measurement. Porter [6] points out that axonometric drawings provides one of the most popular graphic vehicles in design currency. Porter [6] states that ‘it can bring the plan, elevation and section together in a quickly drafted and easily understood illusion of space’. It is important to clarify that the images that emerge from oblique projections are distinct from isometric views that are developed from orthographic projections. According to Ching [7], oblique drawings have a higher angle of view than isometric drawings.

Perspective drawings are constructed by projecting lines from a point representing a specific point of view. Moving this specific point of view and projecting lines from a different point will alter the result. In the perspective drawings, depth, length and width are all shown, relative to each other and relative to this specific point of view. The drawings give a sense of being there, depicting the quality of experiencing the building from that place. According to Ching [7], unlike the orthographic and axonometric projections where the projectors are parallels, in perspective, the projectors converge at this point of view. For him, these converging projectors in perspective give rise to the two principal pictorial characteristics of perspective drawings: convergence of parallel lines and reduced size with distance.

Each drawing’s type has virtues and advantages. All drawings select information in order to help and clarify specific modes of seeing. No drawing is a lesser drawing. A plan is not less than an axonometric because it concretises only two rather than three dimensions. Each drawing offers specific potentialities for organizing perception and understanding.

2 - TEACHING ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS
Teaching technical drawing skills in a school of architecture can be difficult to resource since it usually requires small group learning and lots of opportunity to practice, yet technical drawings are the foundation stone to architectural design and are essential to the process. Drawings skills remain at the heart of architectural activities. Recent research has show it to be the skill that most confirms the designers status in the eye of the client, and the professional bodies still insist that it is a demonstrable part of the student portfolio. In a professional discipline, the teaching of skills plays a central role, ensuring that students can apply the knowledge and values developed throughout the course. In particular, students need to acquire an increasingly wide range of communication skills. These are needed to meet the demands of contemporary professional practice, where they are asked to communicate in a variety of ways with a variety of people.

Usually, only in the first year course there are workshops and lectures related to drawing skills and it is recognized by both students and staff that this is far from ideal. Providing a growing range of workshops is a significant burden on departmental resources, particularly with the size of student cohorts that architecture attracts. In addition, dual course students have difficulty attending skill-focused workshop, due to their dense timetable and as a consequence sometimes struggle to meet the level of presentation skills required in the architectural modules. There is a real urgency, therefore, to identify alternative means to deliver/or support the teaching of communication

3 – THE INTERACTIVE TEACHING PACKAGE
The dilemma of architectural drawing is to represent a 3-D environment on a 2-D surface. Despite advances in electronic imaging this still remains true. Put very simply, to generate a drawing, we make a projection of the 3-D environment onto a 2-D surface.
Another way to think of this is to start with an object and extend ‘lines of projection’ from the object onto the 2-D ‘drawing plane’. Depending on the angle of projection, this can result in various types of drawing.


This learning package focuses on architectural technical drawing skills.
They are used by the architect to represent more precisely the qualitative aspects of the design in order that the designer can progress to a more detailed and precise understanding of his/her design and to communicate both qualitative and quantitative understanding of the design to the other people involved in the process. This learning package will provide an understanding of the principles and some of the drawing conventions (although these can vary across architecture offices and regions) and an opportunity for practice the acquired skills.



This Learning Package is concerned only with orthogonal cylinder projection, (Figure 1) where projecting lines are parallel to each other and perpendicular to the drawing plane.

Orthographic projection though vital to the work of an architect is an abstract and, at times, confusing method of drawing a 3-D environment.
Also, any curved surface or sloped surface not parallel to the drawing plane will be foreshortened and will not resemble how they appear in reality – hence the strange distortion of a pitched roof in elevation.


Figure 1: Orthogonal projection

This CD-ROM has been created to give the students the necessary information to be able to draw technically to a standard that will be acceptable for the rest of their college career (Figure 2).
It is designed to be used in two ways. First as an interactive learning package and second, as a revision resource. The students are free to work at their own pace, and revisit units if necessary, or skip them if they already know the information.
At certain points they are advised to revise certain sections before going on. This Learning Package uses the house and office designed by Sarah Wigglesworth Architects as its chief teaching tool. The building was completed in 2001 and is internationally recognized as being one of the most unique and challenging buildings of its time. It is best known for its unorthodox use of low-tech and domestic technologies combined with a radical approach to the subdivision and organization of space, relating private to public and work to home.


Figure 2: The interactive teaching package

2.2 - The accessibility feature
This Learning Package has tried to make this package as accessible as it can, and has followed accessibility guidelines.
It It has made available transcripts of the video clips. It has used a very clear typeface. It has provided a color picker in order that you can select the most comfortable screen for your eyes. It has sought to make the images provide as much information as possible, rather than using text. It
ItIIIiii believes that being able to work through the CD-ROM at your own pace is a very important accessibility feature.


This CD-ROM has provided a color picker to enable you to select from several backgrounds. You can also change the color of the background text. To do this, go to color chooser on the main menu.
We hope you find this package useful. It has included accessibility which it hopes will increase the use-ability of this package.

2.3 – The units


Unit 1 provides an introduction to technical representation. It includes on-screen quizzes designed for you to check your understanding before you continue to the next section. Unit 1 covers the background to drawing. It asks why architects need to draw and looks specifically at the role of technical drawing. It covers the basic principles that govern architectural drawing and gives you guidance on the materials and equipment you will need and how to set up a drawing.
Unit 2 looks at drawing buildings and unit 3 concentrates on drawing details - stairs, windows and doors. In units 2 and 3 you will need to produce drawings away from the computer at a drawing board. The unit 2 drawings will be handed in for feedback purposes to teaching assistants and the Unit 3 drawings will be formally assessed.

4 – THE EVALUATION

The first year students in the School of Architecture had two drawing workshops with Alex Menezes (Tutor) during the Spring term of 2004. At the first drawing workshop session for each group of students, the interactive teaching package The Drawing Workshop was introduced to them via a demonstration. There were 82 students involved in the drawing workshops and these were split into 4 groups. The students were given access to the interactive teaching package delivered on a Cd-Rom to use in their own time for the remainder of the term. The Cd-Rom was to supplement the material they were given in the face-to-face sessions and provide details of the tasks for both formative and summative assessment.
4.1. – Evaluation Approach
The purpose of the evaluation was formative to identify any technical issues with the Cd-Rom, if & how the students engaged with resource and whether using the resource had enhanced the students’ learning experience. A triangulation study was carried out involving a focus group and a questionnaire with both qualitative and quantitative questions. The focus group was held mid-term after the students had carried out their formative assessment based on the tasks detailed on the Cd-Rom. The focus group informed the design of a student questionnaire. The students were asked to complete the questionnaire at the end of the Spring term once they had completed the summative assessment.

4.2 – The analysis of the data
There were 82 students registered for the first year course relating to drawing. 10 students attended the focus group and 56 returned a questionnaire completed to varying degrees. From the questionnaire, 84% of students involved in the drawing workshop course deemed themselves to have some competency in using a computer. Only 3 students declared a special need in all cases relating to dyslexia; 2 out of 3 of these declared themselves competent computer users. The other stated they were not very competent. None indicated accessibility issues.

From the questionnaire and the focus group, 80% of respondents had used the package. The most common reason cited for not using the Cd-Rom was having no reason to use it since they could complete the tasks without it. When the students were assigned the task by the tutor they were given hardcopies of the print outs for the tasks; these are available on the Cd-Rom. This had to be done because printing from the Cd-Rom required connection to an A3 printer; not readily available to the students on this course. This may explain why some students perceived they did not need to refer to the Cd-Rom. From the questionnaire, 79.5% preferred to load the package on their own pc. The package was under-utilized in the School of Architecture computing rooms. Although some students commented that if the computers in the drawing workshop on the design studio could run the package this would help them seek help from the Tutor for queries directly relating to the package. Also, this would realize the intended use when designed i.e. that the students could draw and have access to the package simultaneously. 60% of the students at the focus group thought the package would be more widely used if this were the case.

For the design ratings, the students were least impressed by the navigation and most impressed by the visual quality. The frequently occurring suggestion for improvement by the students was the navigation of the Cd-Rom. The package had been designed to be used in a linear fashion. However, the majority of respondents to the questionnaire 94.9% preferred to use the package to find specific information. At the focus group, only 20% had used the package in a linear fashion. From the questionnaire, 100% of the respondents stated that the package had some success in enhancing their learning experience. Also for some specific topics, the respondents were asked to assess the effectiveness with which the package introduced these topics. In all cases, the respondents were again very positive i.e. for the topic why architects draw 90.9% thought this topic was reasonably well introduced, with 84.1% thinking the same for the topic how to use drawing materials and 90.9% for the topic drawing details for doors, windows, stairs.

The students were especially complementary about the Tutor, Alex Menezes, and his style of teaching. Some students commented that it was important that the Cd-Rom did not replace the tutor but would be in addition to face-to-face teaching within the workshop environment. In the questionnaire, 35 respondents provided various positive comments on what they would recommend. The most frequently occurring were the multimedia elements i.e. the video clips & animations (13 comments).
4.3 - Further actions required/ recommendations
The School of Architecture should consider upgrading at least one of the computers in the drawing workshop on the design studio so that the students could have access to the package whilst drawing. This would also assist the students in getting help more easily from the tutor, if present, when experiencing problems with the package. If some computers could be upgraded then this would allow the students to use the package as intended i.e. being able to draw and use the resource simultaneously.
5 – CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Cd-Rom needs to be reworked to address the issues for the navigation and also to take into account that the students are using the package to find specific information rather than using it in a linear fashion as the original design intended. The resource was not originally designed to be used to replace the drawing workshop tutor. How are the students to access the package & where? Are the students expected to use the package on their own laptops/ PC’s within the drawing workshop on the studio?

5.1 – Some recommendations
It is important that the interactive teaching package (ITP) is demonstrated in class and students are encouraged to use it. The Tutor/Lecturer needs to ensure the plug-in (i.e. QuickTime version 5) is loaded on the presentation computer so that the full functionality of the ITP can be demonstrated. It is important, to some of the students, that the interactive teaching package does not replace the Tutor. This was also reflected in the feedback on what had helped the students most in developing their drawing skills – 80% had found the advice from the Tutor the most helpful. The ITP was designed to be used in an environment where there were computers and drawing boards available with Tutor support for formative feedback. Hence, the ITP is not designed to be used as a stand-alone resource. The current set up with computers in one location and drawing boards in another is not ideal. 60% of students felt that the ITP would be used more if for example there were computers available in the drawing workshop on the studio along side the desk space to do the drawing. Unfortunately, the existing computers are not high specification to run the ITP at a reasonable speed; hence some or all of these computers need replacing. It is important that the students are made aware repeatedly of where the ITP is available that they can load it onto their own computers. Students had received a handout with these details from the Tutor during the first drawing workshop.
5.2 – Findings from questionnaires
A questionnaire with 20 questions covering aspects of user friendliness, process of engagement with the resource, context of use and benefits for users was distributed to the first year students at a dedicated session. 56 questionnaires were completed to varying degrees.

5.2.1. Competency of 1st year cohort: In order to assess the competency of the 1st year cohort with respect to their prior exposure to some aspect of drawing, they were asked if they had previously carried out any technical drawing prior to starting their course in the School of Architecture. 48% of 56 respondents stated they had done technical drawing previously. (Utilization of this information in cross-tabulation of the data is beyond the scope of this evaluation report but could be an interesting further study). With respect to their competence in using a computer, 84% of the 55 respondents considered themselves to have some competency. This could be expected given that present day students have had exposure to computers within school.

5.2.2. Special needs & accessibility issues: Anecdotal evidence from the staff of the School of Architecture suggested that there is a high incidence of dyslexia among their students. It was considered important to ascertain whether this was true for this cohort of students. Only 3 out of 56 respondents declared a special need, in all cases relating to dyslexia. When they were asked about any accessibility issues when using the package, 2 said “No” and the 3rd didn’t reply.

5.2.3. Use of the interactive teaching package: 80% of 55 respondents had used the package and 80% of 45 respondents had used the package more than once. This information was encouraging and the high level of more than once usage suggests the students found the Cd-Rom beneficial on the first use and hence revisited it.

The reasons specified for not using the package are shown in figure 1. These results show that the most significant reason for not using the package was that some students (5 out of the 11) perceived that they had no reason to use the package for the tasks assigned. When the students were assigned the task by the tutor they were given hardcopies of the print outs for the tasks; these are available on the Cd-Rom. This had to be done because printing from the Cd-Rom required connection to an A3 printer; not readily available to the students in this course. This may explain why some students perceived they did not need to refer to the Cd-Rom. The only other reason given for not using the package other that those shown in figure 3 was due to technical problems when the student ran the package on their own pc.

Figure 3 Students' reasons for not using the interactive teaching package

When the students were asked if they needed any extra support in using the package. The majority 86% said no. Of those that said yes, they mainly (5 respondents) wanted extra help from the tutor.

Table 1 shows how the respondents rated various aspects of the design of the The Drawing Workshop Cd-Rom.

The results indicate that the navigation was rated the poorest. This is also elaborated on in the free form comments by the students when asked what elements of the package would they improve. 60.7% (17 out of 28 respondents) made negative comments about the navigation. Despite the navigational issues, the 90.9% of 44 respondents rated the ease of use as being OK or better. The respondents were most impressed by the visual quality. When asked to comment on what elements of the package they would recommend, 13 out of 34 respondents mentioned the 3D-animations and/or the video clips.

5.2.4. Process of engagement with the Cd-Rom & benefits for users: The students were asked if they viewed the Cd-Rom more than once to ascertain their level of interest in the package. 80% (i.e. 36 out of 45 respondents) stated they had viewed the package more than once. It was important to find out how the students had engaged with package. It had been designed with the purpose of being used in a linear fashion where the students were expected to work from the start to the finish.

The most popular way to engage with the package was to try to find specific information 94.9% (37 out of 39 respondents). The least popular was working in a linear fashion 35.3% (12 out of 34 respondents). Given the package had been designed to be used in this way, this is concerning. Especially since the package does not have a complete hot-linked site map so finding specific information would be challenging with the cumbersome navigation. Despite these issues the response from students when asked how successful was the package in achieving an enhanced learning experience for users, 100% were positive.

They were also asked to assess the effectiveness with which the package introduces key topics presented in the package. These topics were why architects draw, use of drawing materials and drawing details. In all cases, the respondents were again very positive.

REFERENCES

1. Fraser, I.H., R., Envisioning Architecture: an analysis of drawing. 1994, New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
2. Herbert, D., Architectural Study Drawings. 1993, New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. 136.
3. Purcell, A.G., J., Drawing and design Process. Design Studies, 1998. 19(No 4): p. 389 - 430.
4. Goel, V., Sketches of thought. 1995, Cambridge: MIT press. 279.
5. Lawson, B., How designers think - The design process demystified. 3ed.Vol.1. 1997, Oxford: Architectural Press. 318.
6. Porter, T. and S.G., Architectural Graphics. 4ed.Vol.1. 2003, New York: John Wiley and sons, Inc. 215.
7. Ching, F., Architectural Graphics. 4ed.Vol.1. 2003, New York: John Wiley and sons, inc. 215.
8. Menezes, A., Sketching and visual perception in conceptual design, in Architectural Studies. 2005, The University of Sheffield: Sheffield UK. p. 270.
9. Rossiter, D. (2004), P121 Focus group on The Drawing Workshop Interactive Teaching Package, Internal report, LDMU, The University of Sheffield, April 2004.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Alexandre M. Menezes, (Ph.D.- The University of Sheffield/UK), is an Adjunct Professor in the Department of Projects, School of Architecture, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Brazil. He is an Adjunct Professor in the Department of Architecture and Urbanism of Catholic University of Minas Gerais, Brazil. He is also a Titular Professor in the Faculty of Engineering and Architecture of Fumec University, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
His research interests are in Design creative process and Education, Virtual Reality and Applications of IT to architectural design.
He can be reached by e-mail: ammenezes@terra.com.br, by phone: +55-31-2369.1812 or through postal address: Escola de Arquitetura UFMG, Rua Paraíba 697 Funcionários - BH - MG / Brazil.