Research in Engineering Education Symposium 2011 - rees2009

Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (UPM) Página 845 de 957
Furthermore it clearly establishes an ongoing control system which should not be
perceived solely in technical terms, but which also considers the formal and compositive
objectives, as well as its relation and integration with the different aspects of the project
(architectural, construction, functional…).
Finally, and this converges with Newby’s method, the design process is understood to be
an evolving system, open and integrating. The development of the project does thus not
consist only of increasing the degree of definition and detail of the different elements, but
each decision can question certain previous approaches (technical or formal) and the
initial shape or layout may even be altered where necessary. As the development and
definition of the project progresses, the requirements and conditioning factors of the
different disciplines are considered in a staggered and converging manner, and decisions
made in previous phases are reconsidered where necessary.
The answer to an exercise, the answer to a project
Based on this study of the design processes for structure and their relation to the creative
processes, the next point of analysis is the comparison of these models with the process of
resolving an exercise. This phase also considers the guidelines proposed in other studies
and analyses (in particular Torrance, 1977, as well as Richards, 1988 and Stouffer, 2004).
The purpose is to identify the main steps and characteristics of the design of a structure
which allow and encourage creative development, in order to include them or reproduce
them in the exercises and work proposed to students.
The analysis completed highlights the following points:
• The study and data compilation stage (initial stage of the creative process) should
form an integral part of the exercise and be assessed as such. The formulation of
the exercise must only give the minimum necessary data for defining the exercise,
and the student must be responsible for compiling the rest.
• Strengthening the open and evolving nature of the design of the structure,
suggesting alternatives as the development of the exercise progresses, which may
be included in the development or may be even challenged.
• Establishing a possible confrontation with the tutor, which reflects the relationship
between the engineer and the client or the other people involved on the project.
• Addressing open and wide exercises, which require the connection and application
of other structural knowledge acquired by the students.
• Proposing exercises with an open or multiple solution, encouraging a range of
interpretations and evaluations, and making the decision making process an
integral part of the work.
Proceedings of Research in Engineering Education Symposium 2011
Madrid, 4 th - 7 th October 2011