unsw | built environment | computational design program ......• lynn, greg, ed., archaeology of...

UNSW | Built Environment | Computational Design Program

YEAR 1 | SEMESTER 1 | 2015

Computational Design Theory I - Constructing

CODE1110 Lectures: 9am, Monday, Webster 256 (K-G14-256) Tutorials 10-1pm, Monday, Red Centre West 1004, 1005, 1006 (K-H13)

Scan this QR code to be taken to the course UNSW Handbook:

© Collage Shaowen Wang / Images by Phylogenesis: foa’s ark, foreign office architects



Table of Contents 1. Course Description 3

2. Course Staff and Contributors 3

3. Course Communication 4

4. Course Website 4

5. Lectures 5

6. Online Teaching 14

7. Assessment 15

8. Assessment criteria and standards 20

9. Assessment feedback 31

10. Resources 31

11. Class Requirements 34

12. Learning experience and teaching strategies 34

13. Course aims 36

14. Learning outcomes 36

15. Course Graduate Attribute 37

16. Built Environment and UNSW Academic Policies 37

CODE1110 | Computational Design Theory I

of 37

1. Course Description With the “digital turn” in architecture since 1992 as coined by architectural historian Mario Carpo, it is necessary to survey how computational design has emerged from the discipline of architecture and is forcing it into a field of “architectures”. Computational Design Theory sits in between all three practice-orientated teaching trajectories (Place & Technology, Form & Experience, Space & Documentation) and links them together through a theoretical and conceptual understanding developed by thinking and working through theory and practice. The aim of Computational Design Theory I is to introduce and evaluate the role of Theory in fostering a new way of “constructing” the digital in architecture and the expanded field of creative industries linking representation, fabrication and construction. It will serve as the foundation of the tripartite theory stream, which positions students to the brief history, the concept and theoretical formation of the digital design. It consists of lectures, discussion in tutorials, online learning, and assignments. In 12 lectures, the course will track a range of the thematic essential to the ‘digital turn’ and link them to the debates within design culture and critical theory. Students will be introduced to a range of theoretical themes: from Alphabet to Algorithm, Folding in Architecture, Nonlineraity, Hypersurfaces, Parametric Thinking vs. Parametricism and so on. Each lecture will be accompanied by the analysis of selected projects. Together with the required weekly readings, these projects present an overview of opportunities for the content and practice of computational design. Assignments are designed in two folds: 1) develop student’s ability in critical thinking and active theorization for a position through reading, writing and analysing design projects; 2) allow students to practice and explore the skills in software learned from other courses.

2. Course Staff and Contributors Course Convenor : Shaowen Wang

Room: 2002

Phone: N/A

Email : [email protected]

Consultat ion t imes :

By Appointment

Other Teaching Staff : Nicole Gardner

Room: 2007

Phone: N/A



By Appointment

Other Teaching Staff : Dr Sarah Gilder

Room: 2002

Phone: N/A



By Appointment



3. Course Communication Most course related announcements are made in the lectures. It is essential that you attend the lectures to receive these announcements. In addition to these formal communication paths, online discussion forums will be available that will allow everyone to post questions and respond to other people’s questions. All students will be expected to participate in the online discussions. Individual student related communication, including the issue of assessment grades and feedback, will be via the course website. Student email (using the UNSW student account) will be used to communicate changes that occur with short notice. All students are assigned an email account on the University's email server, so that email address will be used as the primary means by which important correspondence are made. You must, therefore, get into the habit of checking your email regularly. Details on setting up your university email are provided at: https://www.it.unsw.edu.au/students/index.html To manage your UNSW accounts and passwords, use the IDM site: https://idm.unsw.edu.au/idm/user/login.jsp Questions that cannot wait until the next allocated class are best handled by posting a message on the online forums. If there are important or urgent matters that require immediate attention, you are able make an appointment with __ via the Discipline Director Unit on Level 4 talking to Misha Pavelkova. I will only respond to emails and answer questions if they are of individual significance that haven’t been resolved by the online forums. See 2. Course Staff and Contributors for more information of how and when to communicate with course coordinator and tutors.

4. Course Website Moodle – this is the UNSW wide online teaching platform and has many capabilities. You can access Moodle via: https://moodle.telt.unsw.edu.au/login/index.php

Use https://teaching.unsw.edu.au/moodle-orientation to familiarise yourself with Moodle. Please see section 7.1 Online Teaching for more information.

Note: There is the potential that your lectures will be automatically recorded under the echo 360 platform:

https://teaching.unsw.edu.au/unsw-lecture-recordings-process

All OH&S and workshop training courses are as well located on Moodle. Please follow the Moodle instructions to complete UNSW’s OH&S requirements.


of 37

5. Lectures For the readings, you must demonstrate you have read the article marked by * in your weekly blog entry before the lecture. This is the minimum requirement to achieve PS mark for the 25% Blogging. A combination of the *-article with one more reading will help you achieve CR mark. For those who have demonstrated the persistent absorption of 2 and more required articles in the weekly blog entry, D and HD marks can be achieved.

Week 1 Topic Guest Lecture - Nicole Gardner - What is Theory? The Digital Turn in Architecture: a History of the Recent Past What was the modernist idealism achieved and represented by modern architecture? How did it shape the relationship between the expression of an epoch, the image of social progress and most importantly the technological advancement? The historical phasing of hand-making, machine-making, and digital-making and its relationship with architecture. We will review the content of the course and the assessments for this session.

Readings: Readings listed are expected to be completed for discussion at the same lecture, The first lecture has no scheduled readings as they will be completed in class. You are encouraged to read the following article before the first class. • Le Corbusier, “Architecture or Revolution?” Toward an

Architecture (1924/1928/2007), pp.291-307. • Readings to be completed in the tutorial: • * Carpo, Mario, “introduction,” The Digital Turn in Architecture

1992-2012 (2013): 8-14. • Morel, Philippe, “Computation or Revolution?”* Architectural

Design, Special Issue: Made by Robots: Challenging Architecture at a Larger Scale, Volume 84, Issue 3 (May/June 2014): 76–87.

Suggested further reading that helps to gain additional understanding of the topic: • Special Issue: Made by Robots: Challenging Architecture at a

Larger Scale, Volume 84, Issue 3, pages 76–87, May/June 2014.

• Lynn, Greg, ed., Archaeology of the Digital: Peter Eisenman, Frank Gehry, Chuck Hoberman, Shoei Yoh (2013): 5-19.

• Kipnis, Jeffrey, “Towards a New Architecture,” in Architectural Design, Profile No 102: Folding in Architecture (1993):41-49.

Tutorial Activities: Introduce Assignment 1 (Learning step 1) and organize the group of 4 for Assignment 2.1 Timeline Poster (Learning step 2). • Compare the urgency of Revolution discussed in the readings.

Why does technological advancement often trigger new sets of theoretical preferences and tendency?

• All students will research objects (can be images) in group of 4 that are made by hand, machine and through computer technologies. Discuss the differences and their significance if any.

• What did Theory help the Digital Turn? • Discuss Assignment 2.1 – select/assign a project for every

group.



Week 2 Topic The Archaeology of the Digital : Openings “Archaeology” as a theory helps us write “a history of the present” instead of finding truth from the past. By examining this exhibition catalogue under the same title edited and curated by one of the architects in the Digital Turn, this lecture wants to reveal the material condition of the digital and how it allows openings of a cultural condition for technology to enter into both the future and the past.

Readings: • Picon, Antoine, “Introduction,”* + “People, Computers and Architecture: A Historical Overview,”* in Digital Culture in Architecture: an Introduction for the Design Profession (2010): 7-57.

• Lynn, Greg, ed., Archaeology of the Digital: Peter Eisenman, Frank Gehry, Chuck Hoberman, Shoei Yoh (2013).

Read the interview relevant to your selected project and relate its discussion to Picon’s Overview. Suggested further reading that helps to gain additional understanding of the topic: • Morel, Philippe, “Notes on Computational Architecture: On

Optimization,” in Haecceity Papers, Volume 3, Issue 2 (Spring 2008): 27-38.

Tutorial Activities:

Learning Step 2 - Diagram your preliminary timeline of the selected project (Study your project and find additional 4 projects per group that could be considered to form a constellation with the core project in the timeline. Scan drawings and bring in your additional research). Assessment 2.1 - Diagram your preliminary timeline of the selected project • From the set of discourses put forth by those 4 architects in

one project each, how can you formulate your own discursive and situate your selected project with theory?

• Discuss what is the concept of Timeline and what are the methods?

• In a group, discuss the framing of your Timeline Poster assignment.


of 37

Week 3 Topic

A Universe of Discourse: Keywords Engaging with the notion of “keywords”, the following operative “site” will be presented: Form, Performance, Parametricism, Morphogenesis, Tectonics, Materialization, Material Fabrication, Responsive/Interactive/Dynamic, etc.

Readings: • Williams, Raymond, “Introduction,” Keywords: a Vocabulary of Culture and Society (1976/1983): 11-26.

• Menges, Achim, “Introduction,”* Computational Design Thinking (2011): 10-29.

• Foucault, Michel, “Part II-2:The Discursive Formations,” The Archaeology of Knowledge and the Discourse on Language (1972): 31-39.


Learning Step 2 (10%) Due Collective: pinup + presentation of Learning Step 2 submission. Collective: pinup + presentation of A2.1 submission • Discuss the method of discursive formation. • What are the relevant keywords in the discursive formulation of

the digital turn? • How can the keyword be employed to communicate the

approach of computational design?

Week 4 Topic From Architectural Design and the Image of Technology to Technology and the Image of Design: a preliminary survey of the shifting landscape A provisional quasi-“third space” started to surface linking on-going disciplines by emerging modes of practice and new technologies during the 90’s. Architecture has bifurcated, mutated, transformed, or totally abandoned into “architectures”.

Readings: Carpo, Mario, The Digital Turn in Architecture 1992-2012 (2013). Following five essays:

o “Folding in Architecture,” by Greg Lynn (1993): 28-47. o “A New Global Style,” by Patrik Schumacher (2009): 240-257. o “Morphogenesis and Emergence,”* by Michael Hensel, Achim

Menges & Michael Weinstock (2004-2006): 158-159. o “Polymorphism,” by Achim Menges (2006): 165-181. o “Introduction to Collective Intelligence in Design,” by

Christopher Hight & Chris Perry (2006), pp.188-199.

Tutorial Activities: Learning step 3 – submit your annotated bibliography + 3 minutes PowerPoint presentation mapping the theoretical landscape using diagrams. • What are the operative strategies employed by these figures?

What are the discourses generated by their practices? • Discuss them in class first. In a group, using the matrix of X-

issues/problems/concepts/goals, and Y-typology/design process/form/materiality to organize your “formation”.

Please bring in large piece of paper, pens of different color and line thickness/ books of different color sticky back note pads.



Week 5 Topic Guest Lecture – Sarah Gilder Computational Design Theory is a link that connects all three practice orientated teaching trajectories. To link them together through a theoretical and conceptual understanding the course will invite course coordinator from CODE1210 and CODE2110 for guest lectures to give a preview on topics to come or reflect on previous discussions.

Readings: • Hughes, Thomas P., “Chapter 3: Technology as Machine,”* Human-Built World: How to Think about Technology and Culture (2004): 45-76.

• Wark, McKenzie, A Hacker Manifesto (2004). The following four essays:

o “Hacking,” pp. 071 – 088 o “Information,” pp. 126 – 139 o “Subject,” pp. 275 – 299 o “World,” pp. 346 – 389


Learning step 3 – submit your 300 words draft paper for feedback. List of projects to help you start Learning step 4 will be distributed. A2.2 – submit your 300 words draft paper for feedback. • How does the guest lecture relate to theory in general and

specifically? • The question concerning the “subject”: what are the roles? • Technology in the cultural realm. What does it mean in general

and in computational design? • Discussion and feedback on how to “construct” a discourse.

Mid Semester Break

Week 6 BE Non teaching Week


of 37

Week 7 Topic

Practice vs Project – I : Materials and Techniques How we perceive materials and objects as stable persistent realities works as the basis for the conception of materiality. Hence there are multiple connections between desired materiality and the sensible materials in nature, culture, and the process of making.

Readings: • Allen, Stan, “Introduction: Practice vs. Project,” in Practice: Architecture, Technique and Representation, (2009): xi-xxiii.

• Picon, Antoine, “A Different Materiality,”* “Material by Design,”* in Digital Culture in Architecture: an Introduction for the Design Profession (2010): 143-169.

• Picon, Antoine, “Architecture and the Virtual: Toward a New Materiality,” Praxis 6: New Technologies:// New Architectures (2004): 114-121.

• Weinstock, Michael, “Self-organization and Material Construction,” in Fabricating Architecture: Selected Readings in Digital Design and Manufacturing, ed. by Robert Corser (2010): 140-151.

Suggested further reading that helps to gain additional understanding of the topic: • Panagiotis Michalatos, Sawako Kajima, and Adams Kara

Taylor (AKT), “Intuitive Material Distributions,” Architectureal Design (July/August 2011): 66-69. This special issue on Mathematics of Space is a good source for match theories with projects.


Learning step 3 – (25%) Due. Introduce Assignment 3 (Learning step 4 & 5) and 3 mins Powerpoint presentation of your A2.2 submission. A2.2 (25%) Due Introduce Assignment 3. 3 mins presentation of your A2.2 submission • What differentiates practice from project in Allen’s essay? How

does this differentiation influence project design and the process of making?

• Presentation and Discussion of A2.2 submission • Go over the list of projects and discuss what is a “constellation

of theories”?



Week 8 Topic Practice vs Project – I I : from Surface, Hypersurface, to self-organized Bodies The digital turn in architecture and design has freed surface from the “body” of a built object to a new landscape of possibilities. With the articulated theories concerning “organs without body”, the peripheral surface can be potentially the starting point for construction.

Readings: • Picon, Antoine, “The surface as Architecture,”* in Digital Culture in Architecture: an Introduction for the Design Profession (2010): 84-93

• Haeusler, Hank, Chromatophoric Architecture: Designing for 3D Media Facades (2010): selected articles.

• Perrella, Stephen, “Topological Architecture (1998-2003) -- Bernard Cache/Objectile: Topological Architecture and the Ambiguous Sign” (1998) in The Digital Turn in Architecture 1992-2012, edited by Mario Carpo (2013): 146-157.

• Snooks, Roland/Kokkugia, “Self-Organized Bodies,”* in Architecture in Formation, edited by Pablo Lorenzo-Eiroa and Aaron Sprecher (2013): 264-267.

Tutorial Activities: Learning step 4 – communicating theories in 10 frames: upload your draft 10 frames and discuss the preliminary “form” of constructed theoretical constellation. • How does Surface differ from Hypersurface? By articulating a

theory of dynamic surface, what kind of design strategy can be imagined and enabled?

• Why is media façade a “productive zone” for the interfacing between spaces, architecture & city, human beings and environment?

Week 9 Topic

Practice vs Project – I I I : Nonstandard and Versioning Both the terms Nonstandard and Versioning do not relate to forms but to a mode of production. These modes of production generate series of different objects. They have revolutionized our understanding of serialization, and the very notion of reproducibility in which we have lived for five centuries of mechanical culture.

Readings: • Migayrou, Frédéric, “The Order of the Non-Standard: Towards a Critical Structualism,”* in Theories of the Digital in Architecture, edited by Rivka & Robert Oxman (2014):17-34.

• SHop/Sharples Holden Pasquarelli (2002), “Versioning,”* “Eroding the Barriers,” in The Digital Turn in Architecture 1992-2012, edited by Mario Carpo (2013): 131-145.

Tutorial Activities: 10 mins group presentation of your Learning step 4 submission in the context of the list of projects. A3.1 (10%) Due • How is the digital design and manufacturing of non-standard

series made possible by digital technologies? Please prepare examples for in class discussion.

• 30 minutes group research on the design products of non-standard and versioning leading to a debate on their pros and cons.


of 37

Week 10 Topic Practice vs Project – VI : Parametricism vs. Parametric Thinking Similar to every advent of technology, theoretical debate tends to fill a spectrum held by two ends: form and a way of thinking. Parametricism connotes the arrival of a “global style” while thinking informed by multivalent parameters is nothing new to practice and theory.

Readings: • Schumacher, Patrik “Parametric Patterns,” in Theories of the Digital in Architecture, edited by Rivka & Robert Oxman (2014):143-152.

• Mitchell, William, “A New Agenda for Computer-Aided Design,” in Computational Design Thinking, edited by Achim Menges (2011): 86-93.

• Frazer, John (1995), “The Architectural Relevance of Cyberspace,” “Architectural Experiments,”* in The Digital Turn in Architecture 1992-2012, edited by Mario Carpo (2013): 48-56.

• Leach, Neil, “Parametrics Explained”*, in Scripting the Future, Tongji UP, 2012.

Suggested further reading that helps to gain additional understanding of the topic:

• “John Frazer in Conversation with Samantha Hardingham,” AA Files, No 64 (2012): 69-77.

• Meredith, Michael et al (eds.), From Control to Design: Parametric/Algorithmic Architecture. Actar. 2008.

Tutorial activities: Learning step 5 – analytical model of one project: 5 minutes ppt presentation of your project research materials. • Compare CAD with parametric design, can we draw conclusion

that the former has become out-dated technology? Please prepare to argue your critical judgement.

• What is the difference between a form of thinking and a way of thinking: compare parametricism in Hadid/Schumacher’s work with FOA’s.

• Group discussion and presentation of the strategies in modelling and visualization.



Week 11 Topic

Collaboration Digital operations open up a new frontier for the new forms of collaboration and can be anticipated from the beginning. The design tools often become part of the design thinking and the logic can be extended in both directions: the conception of design and its unfolding process can be scripted into the software. The optimization of the project performance is no longer achieved through mock up testing. This broadening playing field for designers asks for not only the technical ingenuity but cultural and social imaginations.

Readings: • DeLanda, Manuel, “Material Complexity,” in Digital Tectonics, edited by Neil Leach, David Turnbull & Chris Williams (2004):14-21.

• Cache, Bernard, “Toward an Associative Architecture,”* in Digital Tectonics, edited by Neil Leach, David Turnbull & Chris Williams (2004): 102-109.

• “Editorial – Open Source Architecture,”* in Domus 948 (June 2011): i-iv.

• Panagiotis Michalatos, Sawako Kajima, and Adams Kara Taylor, “Computational Design Consultancy: Interface Between Construction Disciplines,” in eCAADe 26 - Section 08: Collaborative Design 1 (): 311-318.

• Morel, Philippe, “Architecture beyond forms. The computational turn,” access via: http://architettura.it/files/20070312/index.htm

Suggested further reading that helps to gain additional understanding of the topic: • Easterling, Keller, “An Internet of Things,” (2011). http://www.e-

flux.com/journal/an-internet-of-things/ • Lommée, Thomas, “Open Standards: design for adaption • A new design vocabulary,” via

http://www.intrastructures.net/Intrastructures/Analysis_files/DesignForAdaption.pdf

• Lommée, Thomas, http://www.intrastructures.net/Intrastructures/About_-_what_we_are..html and http://openstructures.net

• Ratti, Carlo, http://senseable.mit.edu

Tutorial Activities: Learning step 5 - submit your draft project model for feedback • Individual discussion of your draft 3D project model. Please

prepare one page of the description and theoretical frames. • How does material complexity enables a non-hegemonic

design imagination hence the possibility of associative architecture?

• Group Discussion & Presentation: what are the expanded field of practices enabled by computational design and fabrication? Discuss your project research and the related theories.


of 37

Week 12 Topic Guest Lecture – Nicole Gardner Computational Design Theory is a link that connects all three practice orientated teaching trajectories. To link them together through a theoretical and conceptual understanding the course will invite course coordinator from CODE1210 and CODE2110 for guest lectures to give a preview on topics to come or reflect on previous discussions.

Readings: • Leach, Neil, “Introduction,” and “Forget Heidegger,” Designing for a Digital World, by Neil Leach (2002): 6-14; 21-30.

• Heidegger, Martin (1953), “The Question Concerning Technology,” in Basic Writings, ed. by David Farrell Krell (1993): 308-342.

Tutorial Activities: Please complete the CATEI feedback evaluations in your tutorial class. Upload images of your Learning Stage 3 project on to Moodle. Deadline for the upload is Week 12 day of normal class 5pm. • Why is Heidegger’s differentiation of technology from science

important? • What does Leach argue against some of the discussion in

Heidegger’s writing? Can we situate Leach’s argument in the theory and practice of computational design?

• Special tutorial discussing the A3.2 project before final submission: matching theoretical frames with project analysis.

Week 13 Topic

Scripting the Future What are the benchmark theories pointing to the future? Can we still project the next “new things” when the computational design thinking is always already monitoring the performance and its improvement? How can the practice of computational design continue as critical culture? What is the criticality of the critical in design?

Readings: No required reading for this week. Suggested further reading that helps to gain additional understanding of the topic: • Burry, Mark, Scripting Cultures: Architectural Design and

Programming (June 2011).

Tutorial Activities: • A3.2 (25%) Due • Project presentation and review jury • Conclusion – Collective tutorial session

Week 15 PARITY SESSION of all courses in the semester Presentation of all work of all courses. THIS IS ONLY COMPULSORY FOR CODE STUDENTS (ARCH1101 / CODE1110 / CODE1150 / CODE1161) via a selection of the five best images presented one poster for each course on MONDAY in Week 15 with deadlines below. See Chapter 18 - Parity Session for detailed information.

Readings: non

Tutorial Activities: Parity session set up for students from 10 – 2pm; Parity session for tutors between 2 – 6pm; Take down of work and drinks to celebrate semester 6 – 8 pm.



6. Online Teaching This course, being offered for the first time and in a newly reformed program, will test online teaching mainly in the area of content building and information mining by way of blogging, social networking, and the souring of on-going + sustained research website. This will include the survey of the “form” of online open access information: text, audio-video materials, research generating sites, class blogs and university sites, digital archives, key figures in the online landscape, the open source movements in a range of operative ideologies and strategic practices, and so on. The ambition is for students to search, en-form, and generate their own sensibility in the “weather pattern” of the online information. Online learning is hence not limited to learning experience but the step towards the possible “materiality” of information.

The 1:1 tutorial time is considered a precious resource for students to participate in face-to-face constructive conversation, presentation, teamwork and debate. They will gain specific feedbacks instead of general overviews. Following weekly lectures and required readings, students are asked to form a “information discovery route” oriented by the content of the readings: research findings of the unfamiliar names, philosophical ideas, arguments and discourses; visualize the discussed projects; clarify the particular

contribution from a school of thoughts and the key figures involved; compile a personal archive of out-dated and emerging technologies, and so on.

By mapping the questions, students then need to find online answers and organize them together with their own reflexive interventions represented by notes, drawings, artworks, enmeshed artwork, and on. It is a method of projective learning by way of organizing the digital indeterminacy. Once students have gained a sense of “direction” to channel the inevitable difficulties they have encountered in their reading experience. From the individual online quest for answers, it is possible that the discussion taken place in a physical environment can be more engaged and productive.

This online experience can be part of the 1st year experience referencing the ARCH1101 Design Studio, a paperless one so-to-speak. Students can observe the subtle differences between ‘design’ (more of image-based experience) and ‘theory’ (more of the experience of mind-scape). A structured weekly upload can help indirectly in creating a situation for students to navigate discoveries and to question what is ‘digital materiality’. Can any kind of sensibility and aesthetics be generated from it? Further more, is there criticality in the digital? Where is the location of the critical?


of 37

7. Assessment

Assessment task Weight Learning outcomes assessed

Graduate attributes assessed

Due date

1. Assignment (Participation) 25% 1, 2, 3, 4 A, C, F W 1-13

2. Assignment (Discursive Formation) 35% 1, 2, 4 C, B, F W 3 / 7

3. Assignment (Tool Box) 35% 1, 2, 3, 4 A, C, B, F, I W 9 / 13

4. Online Quiz 5% 1, 3 A W 12

5. “Best of Semester” Parity and Moodle Submission

*) 1,2,3,4 A, C, B, F, I W 15

*) No weight but overall mark will be reduced by 10% if not handed in on time

Assignment 1

Name: Tutorial Participation and CoDe Blogging (individual, 25%, W1-W13)

Description: Blog Site: Students prepare 250 word synopsis based on the weekly topic and post to the individual blog that is linked with the class blog. Independent research (references, images, diagrams, and a range of representations) called for by the weekly readings is expected in blogging. The blog is not only the locus for each student to document, deliberate and question ideas, and posit theoretical positions, but a platform for collective learning experience. For the readings, you must demonstrate you have read the article marked by * in your weekly blog entry before the lecture. This is the minimum requirement to achieve PS mark for the 25% Blogging. A combination of the *-article with one more reading will help you achieve CR mark. For those who have demonstrated the persistent absorption of 2 and more required articles in the weekly blog entry, D and HD marks can be achieved. Each weekly 3-hour Tutorial Participation will include three tasks; student talks, blog posts and assignment development.

Task 1: Student Talks and Blog Presentation (1 hours): Following the weekly lectures, a pair of students will conduct a short talk to the tutorial class on the weekly topic. The talk should be maximum three (3) minutes, relate to the weekly lecture title and refer to the recommended readings. The talk will be the students own view of the topic and can be approached from whatever direction they choose. The presentation should include the presentation of weekly blog showing the research uploads. The talks aim at engaging the students and result in raising questions, conflicts and opportunities for discussion with the tutorial group. The CoDe Theory I blog is an interactive interface intended to provide a



platform for individual students to constructively reflect on weekly tutorial workshops and discussions through text and imagery. Writing is an active learning mode – concepts become clearer and more comprehensible through discussion and writing. The CoDe Blog will help students refine their written communication skills, as well as levels of comprehension throughout the semester. The blog also acts as a medium to provide constructive peer-to-peer feedback, and allows tutors to track student progress and provide brief comments.

Task 2: Assignment Development (1-1.5 hours) The remainder of the tutorial session will be dedicated to collating information and developing the major assignment submissions. Students will be expected to develop resources as suggested under the weekly lecture sessions. Each week should be presented via an online blog post. These posts should include various information including unheard of names, philosophical ideas, arguments, discourses, visualisations, animations, programs, schools of thoughts, key figures, out dated and emerging technologies etc. By collating these sources under the context of the topics and questions raised in class, students will be expected to form answers and reflexive opinions.

Task 3: in class exercise and presentation (1-1.5 hours) As stipulated in the Tutorial Activities, please bring in the required materials and research outcomes on those specific weeks to participate the in-class workshop, presentation and discussion. These exercises are team-based and students are expected to draw their own conclusions at the end of each exercise and document them in the blogs. These will become the generative materials leading to the completion of the major assignments. Students will have the specific feedback from their tutors while working on the exercise.

Assignment 2 Writing Project: (Discursive Formation) This 2-part assignment employs a research writing method developed from Michel Foucault’s notion of “discursive formation” and introduced in W2 lecture.

Name: Learning step 1: Timeline Poster (group work, 10%, hand in W3)

Description: In a group of 4, you will choose one project from the book Archaeology of the Digital: Peter Eisenman, Frank Gehry, Chuck Hoberman, Shoei Yoh (2013). It will be the “protagonist” of a timeline poster. Each group will research on additional 4 projects that could be by the same architects/inventors/engineers or from different architects/designers/artists/engineers. Each group will submit a timeline using statements, images, interpretative drawings, creative graphic design; and in one of the following forms: • A poster in the size of 2 X A0 panels together with the digital file.

Portrait or landscape will be your decision. • A folded book that functions as timeline and its total area equals to


of 37

2 X A0 • An object that functions as timeline and its total surface area

equals to 2 X A0 Content of the timeline could be a combination of the following: Form, Space, Concept, Goal, Organization (of function, space, circulation, material, process), Typology, Materiality, Client/User, etc. This timeline will show a system of dispersion either through your selected/assigned project or culminated in it through the additional 4 projects. The key attitude is to avoid assumed unity in the similarity of objects, modes of expression, concepts, types or themes; and question the “true” meaning of a project supported by a linear procession of time. You will create a timeline for a project to question the preconceived linearity of time past and future.

Name: Learning step 2: 1,000 word paper (individual work, 25%, hand in W7)

Description: Based on the experience of Learning step 2 – the search of a “system of dispersion” through a project – you will select the theoretical themes introduced in the lectures, formulate their analytical tools or design paradigms, and exercise the unfolding of theory in the expanding field of digital technologies by way of project analysis and comparison (the selection need to be approved by the lecturer in advance). In this assignment, you can structure your paper in the following fashion: • What is the theoretical theme of your writing project, in other

words, what do you want to think through in the relationship of architecture with the digital technologies?

• Why is it best scrutinized and put to work in THIS design project by an architect or a group of them/a firm?

• Analysis the design project autonomously, meaning as an built object; and situate your analysis in the field of theories as well – revealing the dis-continuities in design process, conception and execution, aesthetics of making vs. modeling, determinism in form vs. digital indeterminacy, and so on.

• Make comparison with another project or projects. • Is there a clearer path ahead after your analysis or the scenario

remains un-formed? Does “it” – the relationship between architecture and technology - have its own seed of discontinuity planted in the partnership?



Assignment 3 Different than Assignment 2, a writing project, Assignment 3 is an assignment of two learning steps: first, “visualizing” your personal “tool box” of theories through analysis; and the second, “modeling” your personal “tool box” of theories in a building project by constructed “theoretical framings”. Students are asked to select one project that cannot be conceived, designed, communicated, and constructed without incorporating digital technologies. A list of projects will be introduced for selection. Students can select their own projects in addition to the list upon approval from the tutors. Presentation format is a mixed media presentation with jury panel.

Name: Learning step 1: Communicating Theories in 10 Frames (group work, 10%, hand in W9)

Description: Learning stage 4 applies a framing strategy via matching constructed discourse with a project. Students are encouraged to combine different modes of digital representation. The Learning stage will employ two software packages: Rhino and Adobe programs. Students will learn Rhino in CODE1150 (and can apply knowledge gained there in this class) and learn Adobe programs in CODE1161 (and can apply knowledge gained there in this class). It is therefore important to gain these skills in these two courses because this course (CODE1110) is not designed to provide comprehensive software training. The idea is to learn through practice on your own and to become more skilled and familiar with the software by applying it in this course. Students, in a group of 4, will select the theoretical themes introduced in the lectures and weekly readings, formulate their analytical tools or design paradigms into ten statements, and test/visualize them by way of analyzing projects from the given list using ten frames. The 10 statements should be inter-related to one or a set of theories. They can stand on their own as a statement and at the same time forming a “constellation of theories” when linked together to from a syntax/design program. By carefully studying and analyzing the given list of projects, you will create 10 visual frames from 3 projects that could be the best design outcome inspired by the 10 statements. You are encouraged to employ different modes of digital representation: modeling, animation, video, drawings, diagrams, physical models and so on. The submission is a 10 minutes group presentation with visual and/or audio-video work.

Name: Learning step 1: Analytical Models of One Project (individual work, 25%, hand in W13)

Description: You are encouraged to critically assess Learning stage 4 (collective presentation) and finalize your own “constellation of theories” and the project you choose to analyse and model. This should be a written statement (300 words) and a set of diagrams. Upload them onto your blog no later than W11.These are the minimum submission list: • Research into your selected project and understand what is this

building about? What are the significant achievements of its design approach, design solution, spatial organization, material execution, and most importantly its attitude towards technologies through out the process. What kind of digital technologies it has employed and become symbiotic to?


of 37

• Use Rhino3D to model your project. It is essential to have layers supported by your theories:

• Present your analysis using your statement as a lens to unfold your model. You want to demonstrate an awareness of significant precedent in the evolution of architecture turning from analogue representation techniques to one that is digitally enhanced.

Mix media presentation with jurors.

Assignment 4

Name: Online Quiz (individual, 5%)

Description: Complete online quiz based on the content of the weekly lectures. 8 questions will be developed from each weekly lecture series i.e 96 questions in total – students will have until week 14 to complete the quiz via Moodle.

Assignment 5

Name: Parity / Moodle submission

Description: For Moodle Submission: Please refer to 18. Parity Session for information about what to hand in and 4. Course Website for how to upload.

For Parity Submission: Please refer to 18. Parity Session for information on what to present and to 5. Lecture when to present in Week 15.



8. Assessment criteria and standards

Assignment 1 Submission Assessment Marking Sheet (TOTAL 25%)

CODE1110 Computational Design Theory I

Project 1 : Tutorial Participation and CoDe Blogging

Student Name:

Student #

# Assessment Criteria % US S G VG O /100

1 Attendance / Absent

2 Participation

3 Content Online

OVERALL MARK out of 100

FEEDBACK:


of 37

Assignment 1 Assessment Criteria Unsatisfactory

Fail 0-49

• Rarely attends lectures and tutorials

• Minimal participation

• Infrequent online activity

Satisfactory Pass 50-64

• Present

• Responds if called upon

• Demonstrates infrequent involvement in discussion

Good Credit 65-74

• Adequate preparation,

• Knows basic readings but no evidence of trying to interpret or analyse them,

• Offers straightforward information direct from readings only,

• Does not offer to contribute to discussion but will if called upon,

• Sporadic involvement

Very Good Distinction

75-84

• Good preparation,

• Knows the readings well and thought through implications,

• Offers interpretations and analysis of material to class,

• Contributes to discussion in a constructive way and offers suggestions that may counter opinions,

• Ongoing consistent involvement

Outstanding High Distinction

85-100

• Demonstrates excellent preparation,

• Analysed readings exceptionally well,

• Offers analysis and evaluation of material to develop new approaches that take the class further,

• Contributes in a significant way to discussion,

• Keeps analysis focused and responds in thoughtful way to the cooperative argument-building,

• Demonstrates ongoing very active involvement



Assignment 2 / Learning stage 1 Submission Assessment Marking Sheet (TOTAL 25%)


Project : Time Line Poster (Group Work)

Student Name

Student #


1 CONTENT: Depth and breadth of knowledge demonstrated

2 UNDERSTANDING: Quality of thinking in evidence

3 DEFINITION/CRITIQUE of time in a line

4 CREATIVITY: structuring the timeline

5 QUALITY of graphic design


FEEDBACK:


of 37

Assignment 2 / Learning Stage 1 : Assessment Criteria

Unsatisfactory Fail 0-49

• Minimal depth and breadth of knowledge demonstrated

• Lack of relevant ideas,

• Rarely apply theory to address issue

• Lack in use of examples

• Illogical structure and organisation

• Unclear writing

• Crude graphic quality

• No use of formatting guidelines and referencing standards


• Basic depth and breadth of knowledge demonstrated

• Simple use of relevant ideas,

• Minimal attempts to apply theory to address issue

• Rarely use examples

• Basic structure and organisation

• Basic writing style

• Low quality graphics

• Basic and sometimes misunderstood use of formatting guidelines and referencing standards.

Good Credit 65-74

• Depth and breadth of knowledge makes connections but does not create an overall scope or argument

• Some use of relevant ideas,

• Some attempts to apply theory to address issue

• Some use of examples

• Structure and organisation is somewhat held together

• Writing style is somewhat sophisticated

• Graphic quality shows an attempt to achieve effective visual presentation

• Good use of formatting guidelines and referencing standards


75-84

• Depth and breadth of knowledge shows understanding

• Appropriate and substantiated use of relevant ideas,

• Coherent and relevant attempts to apply theory to address issue

• Coherent use of examples

• Structure and organisation is synthesised and sophisticated

• Writing style is sophisticated

• Demonstrates an effective method for graphic communication of ideas



85-100

• Thorough and concise depth and breadth of knowledge

• Highly appropriate and substantiated use of relevant ideas,

• Highly coherent and relevant attempts to apply theory to address issue

• Highly coherent use of examples

• Structure and organisation is clearly synthesised and very sophisticated

• Writing style is highly sophisticated

• Highest quality and highly effective graphic communication of ideas

• Excellent use of formatting guidelines and referencing standards





Project : 1 ,000 word paper ( Individual Work)

Student Name

Student #


1 CLARITY of the presented theoretical theme

2 UNDERSTANDING: Quality of thinking in evidence

3 RIGOR in research + the analysis of the project

4 QUALITY of analysis: project + its relationship with theories

5 RELEVANCY of the comparison

6 CONCLUSION meaningful OVERALL MARK out of 100

FEEDBACK:


of 37

Assignment 2 / Learning Stage 2: Assessment Criteria Unsatisfactory

Fail 0-49






• Unclear writing











• Basic and sometimes misunderstood use of formatting guidelines and referencing standards

Good Credit 65-74










75-84










85-100













Project : Communicating Theories in 10 Frames

Student Name

Student #


1 LOGIC of the 10 statements

2 COHERENCY in syntax/design program

3 QUALITY graphic + representation

4 COMMUNICATION


FEEDBACK:


of 37

Assignment 3 / Learning Stage 1 : Assessment Criteria Unsatisfactory

Fail 0-49






• Unclear writing












Good Credit 65-74










75-84










85-100













Project : Analytical Models of One Project

Student Name

Student #


1 UNDERSTANDING of the project

2 QUALITY from analogue to digital

3 CLARITY of the statement

4 REPRESENTATION: visual + theoretical

5 QUALITY of the presentation


FEEDBACK:


of 37

Assignment 3 / Learning Stage 2: Assessment Criteria Unsatisfactory

Fail 0-49






• Unclear writing












Good Credit 65-74










75-84










85-100











Assignment 4 (Online Quiz / Exam) TOTAL 10%

Name: Online Quiz (opens up in Week 13 and closes Week 15) 10%

Course assessment criteria and standards

Answering more than 80% of the questions in the online exam correctly.

Assignment 5

Name: Parity / Moodle submission

Description: For Moodle Submission: Please refer to 18. Parity Session for information about what to hand in and 4. Course Website for how to upload.

For Parity Submission: Please refer to 18. Parity Session for information on what to present and to 5. Lecture when to present in Week 15.


of 37

9. Assessment feedback Students will gain information about their process in class via 3 basic levels. Firstly, The goals of the class are clearly defined in the course outline and discussed at the beginning of each Assignment and the learning steps within the assignment in the weekly lecture. Here students will understand how their performance relates to the broad goals of the course. Secondly, students will get feedback in each class (during the three tutorial hours) upon their performance. Tutors will help students in one-to-one sessions to discuss and analyse how successful they have been at addressing the task and its criteria of each assignment and the learning steps within the assignment. Thirdly, students will get feedback in each class (during the three tutorial hours) in how their response to the assignment and the learning steps within the assignment could be improved. Tutors will help students in one-to-one sessions to discuss and analyse how improvements could be made and which resources students could consult for an improvement. Assessment feedback will be provided for each student via written comments and verbal comments. Verbal comments will be provided during seminar times. Written feedback will be provided at the conclusion of Assessment 3 and 4 (Comparative Analysis and Implementation Study) based on the assessment criteria and standards.

10. Resources 11.1 Readings, textbooks and UNSW Library resources Main readings

Carpo, M. (2013). The digital turn in architecture 1992-2012. Chichester, Wiley.

Menges, A. and S. Ahlquist (2011). Computational design thinking. Chichester, UK, John Wiley & Sons.

Oxman, R. and R. Oxman (2014). Theories of the digital in architecture. Oxen OX14 4RN and New York, NY, Routledge.

Picon, A. (2010). Digital Culture in Architecture: An Introduction for the Design Profession. Bassel, Germany, Birkhäuser.

Essential readings:

Le Corbusier, “Architecture or Revolution?” Toward an Architecture (1924/1928/2007), pp.291-307. Carpo, Mario, “introduction,”The Digital Turn in Architecture 1992-2012 (2013): 8-14. As well in the same book:

“Folding in Architecture,” by Greg Lynn (1993): 28-47.

“A New Global Style,” by Patrik Schumacher (2009): 240-257.

“Morphogenesis and Emergence,”* by Michael Hensel, Achim Menges & Michael Weinstock (2004-2006): 158-159.

“Polymorphism,” by Achim Menges (2006): 165-181.

“Introduction to Collective Intelligence in Design,” by Christopher Hight & Chris Perry (2006), pp.188-199.

Morel, Philippe, “Computation or Revolution?”* Architectural Design, Special Issue: Made by Robots: Challenging Architecture at a Larger Scale, Volume 84, Issue 3 (May/June 2014): 76–87. Picon, Antoine, “Introduction,”* + “People, Computers and Architecture: A Historical Overview,”* in Digital Culture in



Architecture: an Introduction for the Design Profession (2010): 7-57.

Picon, Antoine, “A Different Materiality,”* “Material by Design,”* in Digital Culture in Architecture: an Introduction for the Design Profession (2010): 143-169.

Picon, Antoine, “The surface as Architecture,”* in Digital Culture in Architecture: an Introduction for the Design Profession (2010): 84-93.

Picon, Antoine, “Architecture and the Virtual: Toward a New Materiality,” Praxis 6: New Technologies:// New Architectures (2004): 114-121.

Lynn, Greg, ed., Archaeology of the Digital: Peter Eisenman, Frank Gehry, Chuck Hoberman, Shoei Yoh (2013).

Williams, Raymond, “Introduction,” Keywords: a Vocabulary of Culture and Society (1976/1983): 11-26.

Menges, Achim, “Introduction,”* Computational Design Thinking (2011): 10-29.

Foucault, Michel, “Part II-2: The Discursive Formations,” The Archaeology of Knowledge and the Discourse on Language (1972): 31-39.

Hughes, Thomas P., “Chapter 3: Technology as Machine,”* Human-Built World: How to Think about Technology and Culture (2004): 45-76.

Wark, McKenzie, A Hacker Manifesto (2004). The following four essays:

“Hacking,” pp. 071 – 088

“Information,” pp. 126 – 139

“Subject,” pp. 275 – 299

“World,” pp. 346 – 389

Allen, Stan, “Introduction: Practice vs. Project,” in Practice: Architecture, Technique and Representation, (2009): xi-xxiii.

Weinstock, Michael, “Self-organization and Material Construction,” in Fabricating Architecture: Selected Readings in Digital Design and Manufacturing, ed. by Robert Corser (2010): 140-151.

Haeusler, M. Hank, Chromatophoric Architecture: Designing for 3D Media Facades (2010): selected articles.

Perrella, Stephen, “Topological Architecture (1998-2003) -- Bernard Cache/Objectile: Topological Architecture and the Ambiguous Sign” (1998) in The Digital Turn in Architecture 1992-2012, edited by Mario Carpo (2013): 146-157.

Snooks, Roland/Kokkugia, “Self-Organized Bodies,”* in Architecture in Formation, edited by Pablo Lorenzo-Eiroa and Aaron Sprecher (2013): 264-267.

Migayrou, Frédéric, “The Order of the Non-Standard: Towards a Critical Structualism,”* in Theories of the Digital in Architecture, edited by Rivka & Robert Oxman (2014):17-34.

SHop/Sharples Holden Pasquarelli (2002), “Versioning,”* “Eroding the Barriers,” in The Digital Turn in Architecture 1992-2012, edited by Mario Carpo (2013): 131-145.

Schumacher, Patrik “Parametric Patterns,” in Theories of the Digital in Architecture, edited by Rivka & Robert Oxman (2014):143-152.

Mitchell, William, “A New Agenda for Computer-Aided Design,” in Computational Design Thinking, edited by Achim Menges (2011): 86-93.

Frazer, John (1995), “The Architectural Relevance of Cyberspace,” “Architectural Experiments,”* in The Digital Turn in Architecture 1992-2012, edited by Mario Carpo (2013): 48-56.

Leach, Neil, “Parametrics Explained”*, in Scripting the Future, Tongji UP, 2012.

DeLanda, Manuel, “Material Complexity,” in Digital Tectonics, edited by Neil Leach, David Turnbull & Chris Williams (2004):14-21.

Cache, Bernard, “Toward an Associative Architecture,”* in Digital Tectonics, edited by Neil Leach, David Turnbull & Chris Williams (2004): 102-109.

“Editorial – Open Source Architecture,”* in Domus 948 (June 2011): i-iv.


of 37

Panagiotis Michalatos, Sawako Kajima, and Adams Kara Taylor, “Computational Design Consultancy: Interface Between Construction Disciplines,” in eCAADe 26 - Section 08: Collaborative Design 1 (): 311-318.

Morel, Philippe, “Architecture beyond forms. The computational turn,” access via: http://architettura.it/files/20070312/index.htm

Leach, Neil, “Introduction,” and “Forget Heidegger,” Designing for a Digital World, by Neil Leach (2002): 6-14; 21-30.

Heidegger, Martin (1953), “The Question Concerning Technology,” in Basic Writings, ed. by David Farrell Krell (1993): 308-342.

Suggested readings:

Burry, Mark, Scripting Cultures: Architectural Design and Programming (June 2011).

Lynn, Greg, ed., Archaeology of the Digital: Peter Eisenman, Frank Gehry, Chuck Hoberman, Shoei Yoh (2013): 5-19.

Kipnis, Jeffrey, “Towards a New Architecture,” in Architectural Design, Profile No 102: Folding in Architecture (1993):41-49.

Morel, Philippe, “Notes on Computational Architecture: On Optimization,” in Haecceity Papers, Volume 3, Issue 2 (Spring 2008): 27-38.

Panagiotis Michalatos, Sawako Kajima, and Adams Kara Taylor (AKT), “Intuitive Material Distributions,” Architectureal Design (July/August 2011): 66-69.

“John Frazer in Conversation with Samantha Hardingham,” AA Files, No 64 (2012): 69-77.

Meredith, Michael et al (eds.), From Control to Design: Parametric/Algorithmic Architecture. Actar. 2008.

Easterling, Keller, “An Internet of Things,” (2011). http://www.e-flux.com/journal/an-internet-of-things/ Lommée, Thomas, “Open Standards: design for adaption A new design vocabulary,” via

http://www.intrastructures.net/Intrastructures/Analysis_files/DesignForAdaption.pdf

Lommée, Thomas, http://www.intrastructures.net/Intrastructures/About_-_what_we_are..html and http://openstructures.net

Ratti, Carlo, http://senseable.mit.edu

AD-Special Issue: Made by Robots: Challenging Architecture at a Larger Scale, Volume 84, Issue 3, pages 76–87, May/June 2014.

Social network resources UNSW CoDe has a Twitter, Instagram, Facebook and Youtube account and all lecturers will be using these accounts to share information with their students. Please join and follow us on @UNSWCoDe (for all above listed networks) we will use “UNSW” + “CODE” + the course number as a hash tag to help finding the relevant info (for this course #UNSWCODE1110). Feel also free to post images of your design on social media using the hash tag.



11. Class Requirements Software and hardware requirements It is expected that you will bring your laptop with the below mentioned software packages to each class. Not bringing a laptop means we cannot look, comment and help you with your work, as we do not run this class in a computer classroom. Using your friend’s laptop means that he or she cannot work in the time given in class and thus is not an option either. Minimum Software and hardware requirements:

• Adobe Creative Suite • Endnote • Microsoft Office or similar • PowerPoint / Keynote

An integral part of this course is engagement in class activities. Consequently you may fail the course if you do not attend regularly even if you complete all assignments. Regular attendance is at least 80% of classes. You must actively participate in classes and complete all set work to a satisfactory standard as discussed in class. Students will be expected to:

• Undertake set weekly theoretical readings

• Participate in weekly in-class discussions and post reading notes + research outcomes on the forum/blog

• Participate and contribute to teamwork

• Conduct independent research • Check UNSW student email

regularly • Check Moodle to access learning

resources and announcements • Update blog site regularly and

participate in your peers’ upload.

If you experience and difficulties please refer to Special Consideration, Late Work and other policies in the BE Policy Outline: https://www.be.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/upload/pdf/currentstudents/LearningTeaching/BE_AcademicPolicyOutline2014.pdf

12. Learning experience and teaching strategies

The course will be offered to Year 1 Semester 1 for CoDe students as a part of the ‘Beginner Level’ in their student specialization journey.

Computational Design Theory is the overarching stream and links the learning trajectories of all other streams together. The core focus of the stream is the acknowledgement that without knowing no doing exists. Consequently teaching in this stream will create a foundational knowledge that opens up processes for all other streams. This foundation is gained via an interdisciplinary framework by studying design thinking, computational thinking, design, architecture, and theories (cultural, critical and scientific) to examine problems by way of questioning whose solutions are beyond the scope of a single field. Projects in this stream are applied experiments where a theory is manifested through a designed object or artefact.

Among a set of teaching & learning strategies, this course attempts to situate “the digital” as a generative system that could give rise to “architectures” within and outside of its structure. The teaching of the course employs lecture and tutorial sessions positioning students to the brief history, concept and theoretical formation of the digital design in broader fields of architecture and built environment. A range of the thematic essential to the ‘digital turn’ in visual representation and documentation of space as well as the material construction of architecture (digital fabrication and making) and its interface with the city will be introduced in 12 lectures. For example: From Alphabet to Algorithm, Folding in Architecture, Nonlinearity, Hypersurfaces, Versioning, Morphogenesis and Emergence, From Algorithmics to Parametricism and so on. Each lecture will be accompanied by the analysis of selected projects that are significant and groundbreaking. Their design paradigms formulated by theories, and new skills used in the design processes present an overview of opportunities for the emerging computational design discipline.


of 37

In the tutorial sessions, students are encouraged to take initiative forming their own study group in a team of 2 to 3 to present the required weekly readings and participate in the discussion. Each of the students must maintain a blog documenting the process of his/her independent research and reading notes. Cross posting and discussion are encouraged. Active participation in the tutorial sessions and regular production on the blog will be marked (25%).

The combination of lectures, assignments, tutorial presentations and class discussions, as well as weekly set readings encourages students to think and practice independently and cooperatively among peers. Assignments (70%) consist of two components and 5 learning stages: a writing project and a building project of analytical models. Students will explore & master the skills in framing and constructing a “theoretical tool box”; and furthermore, the practice and communication, both verbally and visually, of re-constructing a project using theories.

The lecture series has 80% attendance requirement and will have a computer-generated test at the end of the semester. Passing the quiz (5%) with a minimum of 80% right answers is compulsory to pass the course. OH&S and workshop training CODE1150 is using machines as part of the course and under UNSW requirements students must complete OH&S and workshop training prior to using the machines in a combination of Moodle class and workshop and machine introduction. As the use of the machines is essential to complete the class students need to pay particular attention to the deadlines and the protocol of the OH&S and workshop training.

For CODE1110 and CODE 1150 students (CODE students only) need to complete following modules:

• BHSM 003 • BHSM 005

For CODE1110 in particular:

• BHSM 007 / 1

• BHSM 006

BHSM 007 / 1 and 006 might have a service fee. Please refer to the OH&S and workshop training Moodle page for payment details.

Additional, BHSM 006 and 007 / 1 might have and introduction session and demonstration under supervision section. Please refer to the Moodle page for more info. BE workshop induction process BE Health and Safety Inductions (2015) is a modular system of training. Some modules are delivered totally online, using UNSW Moodle’s lesson format, others require an additional practical session with an instructor.

Interested students should:

1. Determine which modules they need to undertake.

2. Complete the relevant module and online lesson.

3. Book and pay for any required practical session/s.

4. Attend/complete the practical session.

To access a BE Induction Module:

• Go to the UNSW Moodle Homepage https://moodle.telt.unsw.edu.au/login/index.php

• Enter your User ID and Password when requested.

• In the ‘Search Courses’field, enter: BE_Health & Safety Inductions (2015), click the ‘Go’ button.

• When asked to enrol, choose ‘Enrol Me’ The Self-enrol key is ThinkSafeActSafe

• Select the module you want.

To access BE Health & Safety Resources:

• Go to the UNSW Moodle Homepage https://moodle.telt.unsw.edu.au/login/index.php

• Enter your User ID and Password. • In the ‘Search Courses’field, enter:

BE_Health & Safety Resources (2015), click the ‘Go’ button.



• Self-enrol key is AccessSafetyInfo • Select the information you want.

To book and pay for an Induction practical session https://activities.be.unsw.edu.au

Your browser will ask you to authenticate:

Username: bepay

Password: quilt

Choose the practical session from the ‘Activities’ section.

13. Course aims Course Aim 1: To make apparent how the “digital turn” has broadened the notion of Architecture to architectures; that through some architects’ “controlling” of the computer in order to represent their desired image of architecture, computational design is no longer a mere technological concern.

Students will engage computational learning and making with historical perspective and through a range of theories. Course Aim 2: Further students learn by examining the scope of “architectures of information” and case studies to analyze how theories have informed and help “constructed” the tools and technologies necessary for computational design and fabrication.

14. Learning outcomes At the successful conclusion of this course the student will be able to:

• Generate and employ knowledge in their own design approaches as well as navigate the digital design medias that explores new forms and new ways of making, that bridges relationships between the designer, image, and information.

• Think critically and collaboratively construct his or her own ‘theoretical toolbox’ and formulate theoretical discourse that can be orchestrated into hybrid discourses.

• Exercise computational design sensibility to formulate his/her own

design paradigm and ways of implementation.

• analyse, represent, and articulate significant projects by situating theories in the expanding field of technologies to communicate and speculate design ideas and solutions

15. Built Environment and UNSW Academic Policies

All students are required to understand the BE and UNSW academic policies. Make sure that you familiarise yourselves with this document.

This document governs all Faculty of Built Environment (FBE) programs and is available in all FBE course outlines and on Moodle, as well as on the UNSW BE student intranet:

http://www.be.unsw.edu.au/student-intranet/academic-policies

It covers:

• Built Environment Student Attendance Requirements

• Units of Credit (UOC) and Student Workload

• Course and Teaching Evaluation and Improvement (CATEI)

• Academic Honesty and Plagiarism • Late Submissions Penalties • Special Consideration - Illness &

Misadventure • Extension of Deadlines • Learning Support Services • Occupational Health & Safety


of 37

16. Course Graduate Attribute

17.

CODE1110 course Graduate attributes Learning outcome

Activity/Assessment

A / Scholars who are in understanding of their discipline in its interdisciplinary context 1,2,3,4 A1, A3, A4

C / Scholars who are rigorous in their analysis, critique and reflection 1,2 A1, A2, A3, A4

F / Scholars who are capable of effective communication 1,2,3,4 A1, A2, A3

I/ Leaders who are enterprising, innovative and creative 1,3,4 A1, A2, A3

unsw | built environment | computational design program ......• lynn, greg, ed., archaeology of...

Documents