Mock‐up versus CAD Modeling Preferences of Architecture Students in the Early Design Phase

relationships.isProjectOf

relationships.isJournalIssueOf

Abstract

Preferences for using physical mock-up modeling or computer-aided design (CAD) among architecture students in the early design phase are analyzed. The data is obtained from a questionnaire, consisting of eight multiple-choice questions and one open-ended question. The respondents are architecture students; the majority of them are still in their undergraduate studies. As quantitative analysis methods hypothesis tests based on the probability distributions known as the z-distribution, and the Chi-squared distribution were carried out. Generally, it was investigated which modeling technique is more efficient in the early design phase. Moreover, according to the age groups of respondents, the difference in the preference among mock-up and CAD is identified. Explicitly, younger students prefer CAD, while other ones prefer mock-up representation. The reasons for the difference are analyzed. Since the choice for mock-up modeling or CAD modeling can have a strong impact on the design processes of both, students and professionals, the result of the study is relevant, because it gives a hint about probable future architecture practice.

Description

Keywords

Mock up Modeling, Computer-Aided-Design Modeling, Architectural Design Studios, Early Design Phase

Fields of Science

Citation

Samancı, B., Taşpınar, Ö., Karcı, Y. E., Cengiz, B., Ozdogan, S., Yıldız, D., & Bittermann, M. S. (2023). Mock-up versus CAD Modeling Preferences of Architecture Students in the Early Design Phase. Journal of Computational Design, 4(2), 245-272.

WoS Q

Scopus Q

OpenCitations Logo
OpenCitations Citation Count
N/A

Source

Volume

Issue

Start Page

End Page

PlumX Metrics
Captures

Mendeley Readers : 2

Page Views

3

checked on Jun 11, 2026

Downloads

17

checked on Jun 11, 2026

Google Scholar Logo
Google Scholar™
OpenAlex Logo
OpenAlex FWCI
0.24

Sustainable Development Goals

SDG data could not be loaded because of an error. Please refresh the page or try again later.