1.0 Intoduction

This study proposes a design research experiment that establishes a relation between tools having similar affordances (Norman, 1988) –that is to cut; and attempts to test the impact of the design process and form of representation that comes along with the tool on a certain cognitive act of a designer, mental imagery.

As Simon has stated in his book, Sciences of the Artificial, “a deeper understanding of how representations are created and how they contribute to the solution of problems will become an essential component in the future theory of design.” (1969)

Representation generated during the design process are –also- tools (cognitive artifacts) and, as holds for all tools, people do not simply “use” them: people contribute in their construction. Such construction needs to be learned, through how to fully take advantge of all its components. (Visser, 2006) This study proposes that this is only possible through a study of these tools individually and cognitively within a design process as part of a carefully set design research experiment.

The views proposed by Simon and Visser are translated here into an opportunity where evidence regarding the question, “is strategic use of a design tool possible in studio education?” is sought. All of this is investigated in order to try to achieve a pedagogically informed constructivist approach to design education. It proposes to utilize what tools implicitly practice the designer based on a cognitive approach.

2.0 Methodological Procedures

A design experiment with a group of graduate students enrolled in Architectural Design Computing Program in Istanbul Technical University is conducted. The experiment consisted of two design tools that share similar affordances and are selected through a comparison consisting of following criteria: production method, operator, modelling method. An individual design session is held for each design tool and both sessions are video recorded. Recordings are analysed through a reading of actions taken by designers during the design process’. Inactivity, staring and gazing are assigned for the assessed cognitive act, mental imagery, since the participants have stated that they stare, gaze and or stay inactive when they construct images of their design in their heads when an initial survey is cunducted before the experiment.

2.1 Tools to Compare

This study takes tools of model making into consideration, as emerging digital fabrication tools alter the role of the model maker in design. The driving force behind the study is the belief that these tools may complement design process (Celani, 2012) as each approach stimulates different abilities. In order to understand what each tool implicitly teaches the designer, a comparative study is framed.

The table below is first constructed to match the tools to be compared. (Fig. 1.) This may seem as a comparison of model making tools at a larger scale. Comparison criteria selected are production method, operator and modeling method.

Production method criteria refers to the type of production process that takes place such as additive (Ad), subtractive (S), cut (Cu) or formative (F). Additive method proceeds with adding layers/parts of the model proposed. Subtractive method proceeds with the removal of the parts of the whole that are not needed for the model. And formative method proceeds with modelling of the negative space around the positive that needs to be modeled, which is then filled with a porous material to form the positive.

A distinction is made on who is operating the process. The reason for this assessment is the belief that although human factor is involved in designing the pre-production phase in either case, running a process manually (M) or digitally (D) involves a switch in tool which in return alters the way a designer thinks as it brings along a different form of representation and process.

Modeling method is also taken as a criteria since it is possible to think computationally (C_o) through a manual process or analogous (An) in a digital medium.

Tool

Production Method

Operator

Modelling Method

casting

F

M

An

laser cutter+ACAD 2D Drafting

Cu

D

An

laser cutter+ACAD 3D Modelling

Cu

D

C_o

3D Printer

Ad

D

C_o

CNC

S

M

C_o

x-acto knife

Cu

M

An

Scissors

Cu

M

An

Hot Wire Cutter

Cu

M

An

Power Saw

Cu

M

An

Drill

S

M

An

Milling Machine

S

M

An

Fig. 1. Comparing Modeling Tools

From the table above, laser cutter +ACAD Drafting – x-acto kinfe pair is selected for further study. The reason behind it is that these two tools show similarities in modeling process and production method. They both pursue the act of cut through comparably analogous planning of parts. This study proposes that is worth comparing tools of similar affordances through their process and the cognitive act it yields.

A laser bed improves the affordance provided by an x-acto knife by precision and speed. Although it may seem as a small difference, it alters the process of design and yields an opportunity to understand how cognitive acts of a designer alter with it.

2.2 Problem Selection

An x-acto knife and a laser cutter is proposed to be compared as laser bed is percieved to have enhanced affordances compared to the x-acto knife which will support the hypothesis suggesting that tool is a design variant and alters the cognitive acts of a designer through its ties to media and process that come along with the tool itself.

The design problem given to measure this consists of two steps. The first step consists of producing a mono-type geometric form such as a cube and a rectangular prism given their construction detail. Half of the participants are asked to generate sketches to produce the cube and the other half are asked to generate sketches to produce the rectangular prism with an x-acto knife and corrugated card board. Then, in the second session the teams switched geometries and ran the same procedure with the laser cutter as a tool. This step allowed us to establish a control set for comparing.

In the second step of the experiment, the participants are asked to re-define the geometry; in other words, design ther own cube or rectangular prism. This forces the participants to think about what they can achieve with these geometries and with the available tools in hand, therefore allow us to compare how a certain cognitive act alters when design process is on.

3.0 Expected Results

It is expected that the use of x-acto knife will simulate a reflection-in-action (Schön, 1983) process where the use of laser cutter will yield a process which is cognitively overloaded for it needs much more frequent mental imagery. This impact is expected to be read off from more frequent recordings of inactivity, staring and gazing as well as attempts to outsource tools that would aid mental imagery such as trying out with a piece of paper or sketching the parts with accurate measurments in laser cutter+ACAD Drafting case.

The reason for this is the opportunity that x-acto knife allows the designer to experience the move-see-move (Schön, 1992) cyle that runs design process simultaniously and in accordance with making. On the other side, use of laser cutter+ACAD Drafting requires the design process to be completed before fabrication. Laser cutter process requires exact numeric input before fabrication. It distinguishes the process of design from the process of production, therefore it reduces the move-see-move cycle down to 2D abstracted lines from 3D material experience provided in x-acto knife case; and causes a higher frequency in mental imagery to occur.

4.0 Discussion

The author believes that a mental tree of design possibilities (Kirsh, 2010) exists in designers’ mind; and that design tools adopted effect the paths followed among the branches of this tree. Therefore investigation of cognitive activities of a designer is valued. It takes advantage of existing variety of tools and the curious environment to understand how designers think, in order to inspect if there is a potential in making strategic use of specific tools in architectural design education. The author believes that strategic use of tools may be adopted in design studio education as an indirect way of practicing desired aspects of design –mental imagery in this case- through establishing a carefully designed exploratory setting for the student. With this study, the author expects to contribute to methods of design teaching in the field of architectural design that are centered around cognitive outcomes of tools.