A Research on Landscape Architecture Student Use of Traditional and Computer-Aided Drawing Tools
Abstract
Objective: This study includes a survey study on the effectiveness of the landscape design process of traditional and computer aided drawing tools by landscape architecture students. The research hypothesis, the traditional drawing tools in the process of landscape design, continue to be used in certain parts of the process. However, the computer aided drawing tools are currently used more effectively and more frequently.
Materials and Methods: In order to test this hypothesis, a questionnaire was applied to the students of the department of landscape architecture. In order to reveal the effectiveness of drawing tools in the design process, a total of 111 landscape architecture students took part in a survey which included 68 questions. As a result of the survey, students' attitudes towards drawing tools were revealed. The questionnaire consists of 21 multiple-choice question, 5 open-ended questions, and 42 questions on the ranking positive sentences by degrees. The data was evaluated using SPSS program (version 15.0). Man-Whitney U and Wilcoxon tests were applied in order to compare the two drawing tools according to the data of the 5th and 6th chapters and to reveal the differences in preference to gender discrimination.
Results: The survey participants consisted of 72 females (64.9%) and 39 males (35.1%) students. The majority of the respondents with 53 people were from the third year, 5th semester students. Determining in which stages of the design process, which of the drawing tools they prefer to use. As a result of the survey, it was found that 91% of the students were more positive about computer aided drawing tools.
Conclusion: According to the results of the survey, it is certain that the computer aided drawing tools are considered more favourable. However, 92,8% think that traditional drawing tools and computer aided drawing tools can be used together during the student design process.
Downloads
References
Bardak, S.D., Birişçi. T. 2017. Drawing Tools Used from Past to Present in the Architectural Design Process. J. Int. Environmental Application & Science, Vol. 12(3): 230-237
Geçe, E., E., 2012, Man-Whitney Testi ve makale incelemesi, http://www. akademikdestek.net/info/utesti.pdf (Erisim tarihi: 25 Şubat 2012)
Goldermans, S., hoogenboom, M. (2001). “GIS Visualization The Killer Application, Geoinformatics”, 35-49.
Ketizmen, G., 2002. Mimari Tasarım Stüdyosunun Biçimlenmesinde yöntemsel ve mekânsal etkilerin incelenmesi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Anadolu Üniversitesi, Mimarlık Bölümü Mimari Tasarım Stüdyosu Örnegi, 187s.
Küçük, A., 2007. Mimari Tasarım Sürecinde Geleneksel Mimari İfadeye Sanal Ortam İfade Araç ve Tekniklerinin Etkisi. Doktora Tezi, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Mimarlık Bölüsmü, İzmir, 205s.
Mitton, M., 2003. Interior Design Visual Presentation: A Guide to Graphics, Models, and Presentation Techniques. John Wiley & Sons Inc, New York, 320p.
The History Of Cad, 2011. (http://mbinfo.mbdesign.net/CAD-History.htm ) (http://mbinfo.mbdesign.net/CAD-History.htm (Erisim tarihi: 28 kasım 2011)
Uğur, vd., 2003. İnternet Üzerinde Üç Boyut ve Mimarlıkta Web 3D, IX. Türkiye’ de İnternet Konferansı, Bildiri no:3,1-8.
Yıldırım, T. Ö., Yavuz, A., İnan, N., 2010. “Mimari Tasarım Öğreniminde Geleneksel ve Dijital Görselleştirme Teknolojilerinin Karşılaştırılması”. Bilişim Teknolojileri Dergisi, 3-3, 17-26.
.gif)
