TEAMWORK STRATEGIES AND METHODS TO IMPROVE …

Proceedings of INTCESS2018- 5th International Conference on Education and Social Sciences 5-7 February 2018- Istanbul, Turkey

524

TEAMWORK STRATEGIES AND METHODS TO IMPROVE DRAWING SKILLS FOR STUDENTS (CASE STUDY: UNIVERSITY OF

ARCHITECTURE AND URBANISM, TIMISOARA, INTERIOR DESIGN DEPARTMENT)

Iasmina Nicolau1*, Anamaria Andreea Anghel 2, Irina Mohora 3,

1PhD, Politehnica University, Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism,Timisoara, ROMANIA, [email protected]

2 Lect. Dr., Politehnica University, Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism,Timisoara, ROMANIA, [email protected]

3 PhD, Politehnica University, Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism,Timisoara, ROMANIA, [email protected]

*[email protected]

Abstract

The ability to draw and make fast sketches is very important in the design process. In the Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism of the Politehnica University in Timisoara, before passing to computer aided design lessons, students learn, during the first year of study, how to represent correctly an architectural or interior design project, using hand drawing means and techniques. For this purpose in our faculty there are several hours dedicated to drawing lessons. These classes are meant to teach students how to transform the three dimensional space they see and perceive in reality, into two-dimensional images. Later on, this will help them make correct correlations between what they have in their imagination regarding a project and what they actually are able to put on paper. It is also important for the students to have the ability to represent a project by hand sketching because in this way they will not rely only on what the computer generates. They will have better representations of their projects in their minds using a few handmade sketches. In this way the designing process will take place before having to draw in detail at a certain scale. There are only three hours a week for these drawing classes during the first two semesters. Students start in the first year with different training levels in sketching abilities. Our aim is to teach all of them the required drawing skills they will need in their future profession. Diverse backgrounds and insufficient time do not allow us to reach the desired levels with all of the students. The paper presents an experimental approach through teamwork in order to determine the students to draw better, faster and more efficient, using various styles of representing an object or interior. One of the main results was that after just one experimental three hour lesson, their progress was visibly higher than in weeks of standard classes. Also the atmosphere during this experimental lesson was full of awareness and presence from the students. It turned out to be not just a technical gain in matters of drawing, but also a way to help the students know themselves better, interact with their colleagues and have a good time while learning. The fact that they do not have the same level in drawing skills and the idea that maybe some of them may not know enough when it comes to drawing or painting, vanished after the experiment, leaving each of them free to express their own style and learn from others. These are the reasons that encouraged us to further develop this teaching method based on teamwork. After having good results over the three experimental years, an improved version is now part of our regular drawing classes.

Keywords: teamwork, drawing, experimental teaching, design.


525

1. INTRODUCTION - PROBLEM STATEMENT

The ability to draw and make hand-made sketches is of high importance in the design process (Edwards, 2008). Since the discovery of perspective during the Renaissance, hand drawing became a part of the building process (Pérez-Gómez and Pelletier, 2000). It was a necessary step in order to have an image of the building that had to be constructed. The image could be evaluated and changes could be made before physically erecting the construction. Although we now live in a digital era, hand drawing continues to play a key role in contemporary practice (Robbins, 1997; Olin, 2008; Riedijk, 2009). Studies have also shown that the direct hand-brain relation plays a fundamental role when it comes to problem solving, conceptualizing, visual thinking and acquiring new knowledge (Have and Van den Toorn, 2012).

Before working on the computer, the concept crystalizes in one’s mind with the help of drawings. In architecture and design schools it is important that all students learn how to make use of drawing skills, not just to represent a project, but in order to create better (Özker and Süyük, 2017). About the connection between the movements of the hand, the development of mind and the role of imagination, Finnish Architect and Professor Juhani Pallasmaa speaks in his book “The Thinking Hand”: “The prevailing educational philosophies regrettably continue to emphasize and value conceptual, intellectual and verbal knowledge over the tacit and non-conceptual wisdom of our embodied processes; The hand-eye-mind connection in drawing is natural and fluent, as if the pencil were a bridge that mediates between two realities, and the focus can constantly be shifted between the physical drawing and the non-existent object in the mental space that the drawing depicts.” (Pallasmaa, 2009, pp. 22, 60). Even if in the end architecture projects require the help of the computer in some way, removing hand sketching from the curricula of architecture schools would be detrimental to the design process because it denies the link between our experiences and our imagination. The link is the hand itself, when used as a tool in representing an idea.

There are two main barriers that we came across when trying to apply this concept in our institution, the Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism at the Politehnica University in Timisoara, where drawing lessons still exist. The paper presents the case of the three year Interior Design department, but the same situation takes place in the six year Architecture department.

In the three year Bachelor curriculum, the hours dedicated to drawing lessons, in order to bring all students to a certain level, are insufficient. Drawing skills develop in time after a lot of practice. In our faculty, drawing classes take place only in the first year, after this the students start working on the computer. Not all students come from a Fine Arts high school. This is why more than the three hours a week drawing lessons in each of the two semesters would be needed in order to give all students a chance to become familiar with the use of hand sketching in the design process.

The second barrier is that many students can’t wait to start CAD (computer aided design) lessons in order to obtain photorealistic images of their ideas. They are eager to start using it from the first year to represent their designs because it appears to them that hand drawing requires much more effort in comparison with CAD drawing. These are usually the students that only started drawing several months before starting the faculty in order to be prepared for the admission exam (80-90% are in this situation every year). They see drawing as an inconvenient because it seems very hard to achieve and it frightens them. They often think that it is impossible for them to reach a level such as the one their colleagues from Fine Arts already have.

An important effect of this way of thinking, is that instead of developing a project in their minds, while making sketches, they await for the computer to present how the project looks. This leads to the changing of the designer’s attributes: he no longer sees the project in his mind before putting it on the computer, but he now comes up with ideas working with what the computer libraries provide. We consider this to be a limitation in terms of imagination and creativity.

2. PURPOSE OF STUDY

There are certain steps to follow in order for one to be able to draw a quick, correct and expressive sketch. One learns how to draw after years of practice. Observation and drawing from life are required in order to learn to see. Only after enough hours, of visual research and representing the reality, one becomes a trained observer and may turn to conceptual sketching, selection, reduction and abstraction of landscapes, objects or ideas. During the limited time, dedicated to drawing in the faculty’s curricula, these steps cannot be achieved accordingly.

2.1 Recommendations for an Alternative Approach in Teaching Drawing Lessons

As previously said, the lack of time was the main cause we decided to try and hurry up the process with an


526

experimental approach. Below are presented other aspects that were taken into consideration.

2.1.1 Distinct Drawing Backgrounds and Skill Levels

Another reason for the experiment is the fact that the drawing level of the students, who come in the first year of study, varies a lot from one student to another. Some of them have studied in Fine Arts Schools and some took drawing lessons only before starting the faculty, in order to be able to pass the admission exam. Therefore the amount of time spent for drawing by each of them is very different. The exam is standardized, so even if they learn enough to pass it, drawing is much more complex and needs more practice. And when two teachers are working with over thirty students at the same time, each of them with different levels and drawing backgrounds, some of them starting from almost a zero point, having the same expectations from all of them would be unrealistic. It is hard to come up with hand drawing assignments, which will not scare them or just add to the rest of the faculty’s requirements, without overburdening them. At the same time they need these drawing skills in order to complete their work at other subjects (design basics, composition, art history, etc.) since their first week of classes. Practically, they must acquire in a month or two skills that those who come from a Fine Arts School acquired in years. This leads to frustration and even depression in some of them. The amount of work needed for all the other subjects leaves them no time to draw on their own at home. The proposed exercise seeks to make the best from this heterogeneous background.

2.1.2 Teamwork

Drawing has always been an individual experience – the artist and his creation. However, being an architect or an interior designer implies interaction and collaboration with other people, not just individual work. Whether we speak about teams of architects or specialists from other domains, clients or developers, a key in succeeding with a project is the good communication and correlation between the people involved. Having an individual idea that nobody has come up with before, the spark, is not necessarily the solution (Narouzi, Shabak, Bin Embi and Khan, 2015). This is the reason why the designed method proposes drawing in small teams of students, it also gives a good perspective regarding the way they interact with each other inside the group and also how being part of a group influences the actions of an individual.

2.1.3 Drawing Is a Useful Skill Worth Learning

One of the biggest challenges, for the ones teaching drawing lessons in our faculty, is convincing the students that hand drawing is actually fun and it has to be done without having fear that it will look wrong. This aspect is usually overcome in Fine Arts schools. For those who started drawing just as a necessity, to pass the admission exam, it is hard to understand that drawing means and provides much more than a certain type of representation (the standardized scholastic approach used at the admission exam, Fig.1). These students tend to have just one way or drawing – one that takes a lot of time to be done and this is one of the reasons they prefer using CAD.

Fig. 1. Example of admission exam drawings.

Nevertheless, the ability of understanding objects and not just of reproducing them, being able to sketch suggestive things in a couple of minutes is much more important than working hours at one perspective. And fast sketching is exactly what our students fear most because it takes them out of the comfort zone into the experimental area. In order to draw something fast and suggestive one must know exactly how that object looks. Only then will one be able to represent it from any point of view. However many of the students spend a lot of time reproducing the object from one angle and get confused when the context changes and they have to draw it from behind or below, etc. Another important matter is letting them know that the final purpose is not to draw better or faster than a computer would while it generates a rendering. Many of the


527

students believe that there is no reason to learn to draw by hand if a device can do it faster and easier. Therefore they should understand that sketching does not replace final renderings, but helps create the concept before starting to work on the computer.

2.1.4 Architects Use Various Styles of Drawing

Our experimental approach was designed in order to determine them to draw with more courage and teach them that there are various styles of representing an object or an interior through drawing. The connection between what the mind generates and the way the hand exposes it to its own creator is far more important than the final drawing itself. This is why drawing is helpful and beautiful in many different forms (Have and Van den Toorn, 2012).

3. METHODOLOGY

The study presents two experimental drawing teaching exercises. The first one focused on the following aspects: a) speeding the drawing process, b) acquiring different styles of representation, c) overcoming the fear of making mistakes, d) inducing a competitive and under pressure state in a fun way, e) achieving better communication and cooperation between the students. The second exercise focused on d), e) and f) the idea that one has to be able to produce a drawing that fits in a larger context that cannot be done by one person only in the amount of time given.

3.1 Following Other Colleague’s Example

This exercise was always done after at least half of the first semester passed, or sometimes only in the second semester. This way the teachers had a correct overview concerning the drawing level of all students. Without the students knowing what will follow, the teachers would announce that today’s class will imply teamwork. Each team consisted of four or five members. Then the teachers would call out five students (which draw best) and ask them to choose the other members of the team. Sometimes the teams were created by drawing lots. All members in a group would sit around a large table, facing the other team mates. An object was placed in front of each group in the middle of each large table. Each student had a 50x70 cm sheet of paper placed on horizontal which had to be divided in eight equal parts: four columns and two rows (Fig.2). The first step was for each of them to draw the object that was in front of their eyes, on the group’s table, in the upper left corner of their paper, as well as they could. The amount of time given was half an hour. The surprise came after the time expired and they had to pass to the next drawing, but not as they expected. They moved to the second frame, but not on their own sheet of paper, but at another group member’s paper.

Fig. 2. Groups of students drawing on the specified paper format during the first experimental exercise.

They were told that they had to draw the same object again, from a slightly different angle this time and in the other student’s manner of drawing. They could only improve the construction part if needed, but the cross-hatch, colors and shades style had to resemble as much as they could the one of their colleague. This time the amount of time given was ~20 minutes. They kept changing places this way while we gradually reduced the drawing time until they got back to their seats. The last drawing was on the same sheet of paper as the first (their own) and had to be done in just ten minutes. The seat rotations ended at the fifth frame. The three frames left were used for other types of exercises each year. These were also linked to the object in front and encouraged free approaches like representing the object with the left hand or using the mouth to hold the brush, without pre-drawn contours or reinterpreted versions of the object.

The decision of assigning a student with good drawing skills, in each team, was taken in order to provide a positive example for the rest of the members in the group. This way the others would observe all the time


528

how a skilled colleague works, take a close look at a good drawing and then have the chance to reproduce it. The students were allowed to put questions, within the group, about the techniques or materials used to

make a certain representation. After having contact with a representative drawing, the evolution is obvious (Fig. 3) concerning the construction line of the object, the choosing of appropriate colors, shades and the

way of representing details.

Fig. 3. From left to right: 1) First drawing of a student “A” with low drawing skills, 2) Drawing of the team leader, 3) Drawing of student “A” after seeing and following the example, 3) and 4) Drawings of student “A”

on the other member’s sheets of paper – continued to apply what she learned from the team leader.

It is important to mention that part of the mark will be given on how accurate each student manages to reproduce the different drawing styles of other group members. This way we encouraged them to talk about how they drew a certain thing and share materials, tools and impressions with their colleagues.

3.2 Being Part of a Bigger Picture

This experiment was done at the beginning of the second semester, as the first assignment. Its purpose was to introduce the students to the new techniques implying color that were going to be studied along the rest of the semester.

In order to help the students become a little familiar with color, the traditional method was having each student work on a personal sheet of paper, measuring 50 x 70 cm, divided in small (5 x 5 cm) squares. While filling each square with a certain color following a set of requirements they could study the contrasts, color gradients, mixture and textures that can be acquired with colors, using three basic techniques: colored pencils, acrylic or tempera and water colors.

The new method kept the idea of filling squares with color and teamwork was introduced in addition. We created groups of six or four members. Each of the groups consisted of three (or two) pairs of students and each of these pairs worked on one sheet of paper which measured 100 x 70 cm that was also divided in 5 x 5 cm squares. This way the same amount of coloring had to be done by each student, as in the traditional assignment, but the major change was that at the end the three or two large sheets of paper, made within a group of students, had to be part of a large picture that would be exhibited in the lobby of the faculty (Fig.4). The main theme and pattern of this picture had to be designed and discussed between all the members in a team at the beginning of the assignment. Afterwards each pair would work together on a sheet of paper composing that picture and do the best to finish in order to have a complete painting for the exhibition. It was announced that the final mark will be given 50% on the whole picture, and the rest on each sheet of paper separately.


529

Fig. 4. Exhibition of Interior Design Department’s first year teamwork drawings in the faculty’s lobby

4. FINDINGS AND RESULTS

The purpose of the first experiment was to help all of the students, no matter what was their drawing background, achieve a certain level of sketching. This was accomplished by using teamwork, and by asking them to draw the same object several times in order to teach them how to observe, understand and synthesize it through the drawing process.

Group interaction was used for speeding up the learning process, this way the students themselves became teachers. Having a different model next to them at each phase, influenced the way they did their own drawings in the end. During just one three hour class they drew an object eight times, four of them from different angles and in various styles. The aim of showing the students that they can draw much faster than they think they can was accomplished. They could also see that skill and speed in drawing is accomplished through practice and repetition and is not simply a result based on native talent. Their reactions after the first chair shift were: “Oh my God, don’t spoil my drawing, this can’t be true (…)”. There were also a lot of laughs in the beginning, but at the end everyone was very serious and trying to draw as best as he or she could.

Designating one of the best students in each team was very useful because this way all the members in a group could change impressions between them and see what the team leader was doing. The most important fact was that the entire team would see how the best student draws (Fig. 5) and the process involved, because all team members were sitting at the same table. Using an entertaining way of working under pressure, the students had to quickly draw the same object, overcoming the fear of not achieving what they had pictured as being a “perfect line” or a “perfect drawing”. After a complete cycle of seat changing all of the students became familiar with the object. This way they saw that drawing is fun and that one should learn from mistakes, not fear or panic if the drawing is not ideal from the first attempt.

Fig. 5. Following a good example – the team leader’s sheet of paper: from left to right – a) drawing model, b) c) and d) drawings of the rest of the team’s members, all of them have better drawings than their original


530

ones – c) drawing of the student “D” who had the lowest skill level in the group, his personal evolution will be shown in Fig. 7.

We also wanted to show the students that there are many different ways of representing an object and each of them is correct depending on what the author wishes to transmit to the audience. Even if the styles within a team weren’t so different, the fact that in each group there was a leader that knew how to start, that drew close to the others step by step several times, made the other members follow him easier than if it were a teacher explaining and drawing in front of the entire classroom. They could also talk between them, ask whatever they wanted, but almost all questions happened in the first two rotations. After that, all the students knew what to do. During the last seat rotations everyone was quiet and working really hard in order to finish as well as they could. They were drawing faster than we ever saw them and better.

Another reason for the experiment was to make each of them try different styles of drawing and let go of the idea that their own manner is the only possible (Fig. 6) one or the best. They managed to reproduce various styles of drawing around them: for example some students use more force and some less, some like to experiment, others are very good at observing details. They were told it is important for having a good mark to reproduce the style of their colleagues. This made them ask one another how to do a certain color or brush effect, suddenly finding themselves in the posture of teachers and also learning new techniques. They were also explained that the final mark will be given on the entire paper so they imagined all drawings should be good no matter who made them. As a result they encouraged one another to do a good job. In the end we analyzed mostly the first and the last drawing of each of them in order to see if there was any progress and less the capacity of reproducing a certain style as these weren’t so distinct one from another.

Another aspect which has been noticed was the fact that students interact very well between them when one of them gets the role of the teacher. The informal language they use when asking for information one from another and the fact that they are in smaller groups and do not have to ask for something in front of the entire classroom were positive circumstances. The team leaders, even if they didn’t improve their drawings, had the occasion to explain things they knew and see if they can transmit what they want to the others. For them it was probably a more social and psychological experience.

Fig. 6. Following an incorrect example – the sheet of paper of the student “D” with lowest drawing skills in the group: from left to right – a) student’s “D” drawing, b) c) and d) drawings of the rest of the team’s members, all of them have worse drawings than their original ones – c) drawing of the team leader whose first drawing can be seen in Fig. 5. All group members tried to use the style of the example, even if it wasn’t a great one

or if it didn’t resemble at all their own manner of drawing

The main result was that the biggest progress was made by the ones who were drawing the worst (Fig. 7). These students could practically copy after better drawings. Also they could watch the leader drawing step by step and draw in the same time with them. They remembered the process when returning to their seats and having to redraw from the same angle again. When teachers explain at the blackboard, all 30 students will move in different times and the lesson will go slower overall. When being part of 4 or 5 member teams, all students (including the ones who did not draw so well) could coordinate better.


531

Fig. 7. The evolution of student “D”: from left to right – a) the first attempt, followed by three drawings after the examples of the other members of the group; b) following the style of a colleague with low skill level in

drawing, c) and d) reproducing the style of the best students in the team.

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

One of the problems in drawing class is that gaining experience and ability in drawing comes after a lot of work. The curriculum integrates hand drawing just in the first year of study, one semester for graphite pencils and the other for techniques that make use of colors. There are three hours per week dedicated for this subject. Also, starting with the first semester, students have to use their ability to draw for doing their assignments at the majority of the important subjects.

Drawing is a practical ability, not a theoretical one. Teachers can explain basic principles of construction, color, texture, lights and shadows, etc. but until each student does not try this physically, it means no more than words for the mind. Although the students pay attention, when starting to actually draw on their own, things don’t come as smooth as they sound in theory. The students have a lot of work at all the other subjects and cannot work enough for drawing classes in order to gain the needed drawing skills for designing. Many of them fear drawing, consider it too hard and wait for the second year in order to start designing on the computer using CAD programs.

The study presents two experimental approaches that can be used for drawing lessons, meant to help raise the drawing skill level of the entire classroom in a short period of time. Another purpose of the experiments was to determine if students can help each other draw better. In our faculty a teacher is assigned to 12-15 students. During the three hours of drawing, the teachers cannot pass enough times at each student. We noticed that students tend to learn easier from a fellow colleague than from a teacher, maybe because they can get familiar with other students of the same age and fear that if they ask a teacher some things they will look foolish. We also noticed than on many occasions the students who drew the best (and were admired among the others) would go and help their colleagues. So we came up with an experimental method where we would deliberately use this in order to help the majority. Usually there is a 10-15% of students who draw very well (Fine Arts students and on rare occasions some who draw on their own out of passion) and the rest are medium or lower level. We delegated a number of team leaders – the ones that draw best and each of them had to choose their team.

Working in small groups on a single piece of paper instead of each of them with his own blank, large paper is better for speeding up the work and learning from others. Students learn a lot one from each other, not just from their teachers. Socializing is possible while working on their drawings without being distracted by the talk. Sharing materials, impressions and information on the topic helps learning. The transfer of the competition between individuals to one between groups encourages learning.

This led to better communication and the encouraging and motivation processes inside the group were better than the ones teachers were able to transmit to an entire class. Inside the small group, students could relate one to another in an informal way and they could motivate and convince one another to work better in ways teachers don’t normally try. There was a case, during the second type of experiment described, of a group with four members: two girls who normally didn’t work very much and two boys who didn’t like drawing classes and had a lack of interest in the assignment. The girls, seeing that the boys don’t put too much effort


532

into finishing the drawings, started to work more than they usually did, in order to compensate – something they didn’t do on other occasions. They also managed to convince the boys do their part in order to complete the task, as the girls saw that the whole team had to come up with something worthy of the exhibition. Also the girls knew they would have a bad mark if the boys would not work. We, as teachers, never managed to convince neither of them to work so much before, on individual assignments.

After three years of undertaking these experimental classes we observed several things that can be improved. Recommendations for further research are discussed below.

It is best for both the experiments to be done in the second semester, when the students learn to draw in different techniques, not just graphite pencil that they have to use during the first semester. After the half of the second semester, in our faculty, most of the assignments are required to be done using mixed techniques. This way all students can choose to work in one or several techniques that they like the most. The curricula teaches just some basic manners of representation such as colored pencils, watercolors or ink, but there are a variety of other drawing tools like markers, pastels and various style of pens that some students like to use. This way they can present them to all colleagues in a short period of time. While working in teams, all members can learn new techniques from the others.

A correct way of making the teams is necessary. If all members are chosen by drawing lots there is a risk of having students who don’t really cooperate well in the same group or too many students with a low drawing level. Then the experiment could go wrong because there won’t be enough information to share, enough interest and the fun lacks. The team leader choosing all members is also not the best option. Usually friends are chosen, most of the times friends draw in the same way as the leader and some students could turn out excluded. Diversity and the chance of helping the students who are not so skilled at drawing get lower. Each team should be well balanced and contain good, medium and low level members. At the same time if the teachers select the entire team’s componence the students feel like they didn’t have a choice and could say that this was the reason they couldn’t cooperate.

The best part was that without realizing or getting bored, the students started to draw faster and faster, and more correct a certain object. An adequate object is required, one that is complex, having more than one texture, but that requires 10-15 minutes to draw. Also the object must be interesting enough to enable more styles of representing it.

The experiment has the best results when it comes to the students that do not draw so well. The team leaders can at most develop or improve their organizing and teaching abilities. There were two categories of team leaders, ones who had less authority over their colleagues and usually presented a slight regression (Fig. 8) after seeing the drawings of the others. The second category were the students who managed to convince the others to draw better in order to have a good outcome as a group. This is the reason we mentioned from the start that part of the mark will be given on group results – it was important that all drawings in a group were good, not just that some of them and the others very low. This way we tried to stimulate everyone to work as well as they could not just for themselves but for the entire team: in order to have a higher mark, some group members convinced others to work harder; also some students that generally didn’t care about their marks, managed to do their best when having a powerful leader. Such experiments seem to make the students more responsible. On the other hand, the students learned a lot from their colleagues, more than two or three teachers could show or explain to thirty plus persons during the time given.

Fig. 8. From left to right: a) the first drawing of the team leader in a group of four – positive traits and artistic qualities can be seen, b), c) and d) drawings of the other team members made on the leader’s sheet of paper, e) second drawing of the leader on her own sheet of paper after trying her colleagues style – no


533

improvements could be seen, more likely an involution – also the mistake of emphasizing too much the slight truncated cone shape of the object was kept even though none of the other team members made it.

REFERENCE LIST

Edwards, B. (2008). Understanding Architecture Through Drawing. 2nd

ed. London: Taylor & Francis Group

Have, R., Van den Toorn, M. W. M. (2012). The role of hand drawing in basic design education in the digital age. ENMA 2012: Proceedings of the 2012 International Conference on Engineering and Mathematics, Bilbao, Spain

Narouzi, N., Shabak, M., Bin Embi, M. R., Khan, T. H. (2015). The Architect, the Client and Effective Communication in Architectural Design Practice. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Volume 172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.413

Olin, L. (2008). More than wriggling your wrist (or your mouse): thinking, seeing, and drawing, in Treib, M. (ed.) Drawing/Thinking: Confronting an Electronic Age. London: Routledge, pp. 82-99

Özker, S., Süyük, E. (2017). Importance of Sketching in the Design Process and Education. The Online Journal of Science and Technology, Volume 7, Issue 2. https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20162601053

Pallasmaa, J. (2009). The Thinking Hand: Existential and Embodied Wisdom in Architecture, Chichester, UK, John Wiley and Sons Ltd, pp. 22, 60

Pérez-Gómez, A. & Pelletier, L. (2000). Architectural representation and the perspective hinge. Cambridge/London, MIT Press

Riedijk, M. (2009). De Tekening, de bestaansreden van de architect - The drawing, the architect’s raison d’ȇtre, Rotterdam, 010

Robbins, E. (1994/1997). Why architects draw, Cambridge MA, MIT

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.413

https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20162601053

TEAMWORK STRATEGIES AND METHODS TO IMPROVE …

Documents

Transcript of TEAMWORK STRATEGIES AND METHODS TO IMPROVE …