Applied Parametric Software Training in Pakistan

Running head: APPLIED PARAMETRIC SOFTWARE TRAINING IN PAKISTAN 1
Applied Parametric Software Training in Pakistan: A Shift from Procedural Tutorial Based
Teaching to Hybrid Teaching Models
Muhammad Talha Muftee
Department of Architecture and Design
COMSATS University Islamabad, Lahore Campus, Pakistan

APPLIED PARAMETRIC SOFTWARE TRAINING IN PAKISTAN 2
Abstract
Conventional practice for teaching digital tools in architecture design specifically in
Pakistan involves a sequential tutorial-based curriculum which introduces various
components of the software, its interface, and functions in a linear sequence, known as
procedural training. This model while effective for a basic introduction, may not result in
knowledge retention or teach students about application for their own purposes. The model
was relevant at a time when students were not familiar with computers and digital interfaces
in general. Currently, the average undergraduate student in Pakistan is familiar with personal
computing devices and architecture design is going through a technological and
methodological shift based on parametric design, which makes it necessary to re-assess the
conventional software training approach. This research paper is a documentation of an on-
going software training class under the title “Parametric Design” being run in Department of
Architecture, COMSATS University Islamabad, Lahore Campus, Pakistan. The class is a
basic introduction to parametric design tools, specifically Grasshopper (a plugin for
Rhino3D). Introduced in undergraduate curriculum in 2017, the parametric software training
is a shift from the conventional tutorial-based model and experimenting with various types of
software training models. This paper investigates the progress made and seeks to come up
with a framework for teaching complex parametric design tools to better equip students for
the future of architecture design.
Keywords: software training, architecture design, digital tools, parametric design,
grasshopper.
Background
History of Architecture Design Tools
The evolution of architectural design methods whether to design buildings or urban
spaces (like public spaces or cities), has historically mirrored development in tools and
technologies available to architects. Since the task of designing and constructing architecture
demands a significant amount of financial investment, time, energy and labour, architects and
planners are always in search for more efficient design methods. Additionally, such projects,
due to their inherent complexity require large groups of experts, labour, practitioners etc. all
dealing with different stages and aspects of any architectural project. Thus, the need for
communicating essential information between groups with precision has also been a driving
factor for architects and designers to seek out and employ the most advanced tools available
at any time. Greek architects for example, have been known to construct models of important
temples to be constructed (Coulton, 1977). These models allowed for visualizing a design
before construction and further used on site to convey necessary details and information to all
personnel involved with the construction.
19th century onwards, the primary tools of the architect were two-dimensional
orthographical drawings usually referred to as plans, sections or elevations of a building or
space (Hewitt, 1985). Over time, these methods and modes of representation established the
standards which are being used even today.
Digital Design Tools
With the advent of computers during 1960s, architects found a much more efficient
platform to design even if in the manner of conventional orthographical drawings. The origin
of digital design in architecture can be traced back to Ivan Edward Sutherland who developed
the first digital tool for drawing geometry called Sketchpad in 1962 as part of his PhD thesis
(Sutherland, 1963). However, it was not until 1980s that computers became affordable to a
degree that various architects started using digital tools such as the architectural drafting tool
AutoCAD released in 1982 by Autodesk. Since then, AutoCAD has become the ubiquitous
architectural drawing and design tool. Even today it is the most used digital tool by architects
around the world (Roopinder Tara, 2017) including Pakistan.
Since all computing technologies have developed and evolved at an exponential rate,
the computing power available to architects has completely changed within the last couple of
decades. This rapid change in digital tools also means that architects, in order to keep up with
design possibilities offered by these tools need to be familiarize themselves through effective
learning and training opportunities.
Origins of Parametric Design
As technologies evolve, not only do they influence the way architects design, but it
also impacts how architecture is perceived. Each technological shift marks a paradigm in
architecture design. Moreover, changing economic, social, and environmental conditions
require architects to continuously revise their design tools and processes.
As such, with the increasing number of architects transitioning from manual drawings
to digital tools since 1960s, architects sought design processes that were more adaptive,
flexible and could allow them to innovate. Such adaptive design thinking eventually lead to a
new architecture paradigm known as parametric design. To define simply, a parametric
design process is one in which architects or designers define the parameters that govern the
design process. The term is essentially borrowed from the concept of parametric equations in
mathematics. Parametric equations are defined as a set of equations which contain explicit
functions and relations between independent variables (Stover & Weisstein, 2019). As values
of parameters or variables change, the output of the parametric equation changes. Similarly, a
parametric design process is a design process which is defined by the relations between
different variables and parameters. Any change in the initial conditions or parameters reflects
a change in the final design output.
While the history of parametric equations is extensive in mathematics and science, in
architecture the exact origins can be traced to multiple points in history depending on how
once understands parametric design.
One example which is considered an origin of parametric design is the work of
Spanish architect Antoni Gaudí who designed the vaults and structural systems of the church
of the Colonia Güell near Barcelona, around 1894. He devised a parametric design process by
creating an inverted hanging model for the vaults with loads tied to ends of strings. Under
structural equilibrium, the strings created curvilinear spaces. The hanging model was itself a
parametric design model with the parameters being the hanging weights, lengths of strings
and the fixed end points of the strings. With any change in one of these parameters, the model
would result in a different three-dimensional model expressing how different forces would be
transferred along the vaults (Huerta, 2006). This model can be considered as a parametric
design process but an analogue one, since Antoni Gaudí did not have access to modern
computing power; he also never explicitly called his process a parametric design process.
A relatively modern example for parametric design would be the works of Italian
architect Luigi Moretti who defined parametric architecture specifically in his writings since
1940s (Moretti, 1970). He proposed an architecture design process in which different aspects,
constraints and properties of form and structure could be considered as parameters, each in a
precise relationship and hence, influencing one another. He also exhibited works under the
banner of “Parametric Architecture” which showcased how a stadium could be designed
through a parametric process in 1960 (Bucci & Mulazzani, 2002).
However, in our context of digital tools the first example of a parametric design tool
would be Sketchpad, developed by Sutherland. Though he never specifically used the term
parametric, he developed parametrically driven tools in his software. In his thesis he uses the
term constraints which define the properties of the various geometry drawn on the computer
and allow the designer to define relations between these constraints (Sutherland, 1963).
Parametric Design Today
Since Sutherland’s Sketchpad program in 1962, computing capabilities, software and
technologies have evolved at an exponential rate. Parametric design tools are now more
common in architectural practices around the world (Weisberg, 2008). Architects and
designers today enjoy the freedom to explore innovative designs that are far complex than
any other designs in history. The digital era of parametric design has also encouraged
architects to explore multi-disciplinary design processes, overlapping architecture design with
subjects such as computer programming and emerging technologies such as artificial
intelligence and 3d printing. Since parametric design is essentially a system in which
variables and functions need to defined precisely, architects are now learning to code and
develop algorithms to gain more design flexibility (Woodbury, 2010).
At institutional level, an increasing number of architecture schools are now teaching
parametric tools at various levels (Ceccato, 1999). Since this approach to design enables
architects around the world to be directly involved in the fabrication process, instead of
simply developing concepts, they can produce and manufacture architecture as well,
engaging with their designs on an individual level while giving them more room to innovate
(Kolarevic, 2001). This can also be understood as a reaction to the previous generation of
CAD (Computer Aided Design) tools creating a disconnect between architects and the spaces
designed, offering limited control and mostly emulating conventional tools for design (Burry,
2011).
Seeing as how parametric design and scripting is the inevitable future for architecture
practice, academic training of architecture students must equip them with not only specific
digital design tools but also enhance their ability to adapt to an ever-increasing landscape of
design tools to the extent that they are able to develop their own digital design methodologies
as future architects.
Digital Tools in Pakistan
In case of Pakistan, adoption rate of newer design tools is slower due to various
factors such as economic barriers, lack of training opportunities, access and exposure to
technology, limited internet access etc. Being a developing economy, Pakistan tends to leap-
frog to newer tools and technologies only when they are cheap and accessible enough to be
deployed on a massive scale, skipping any intermediate development stages. Consequently, it
impacts the architectural practice in Pakistan as a whole, which is evident by the fact that
majority of firms in Pakistan still rely on outdated tools (such as AutoCAD) and in many
cases redundant manual labour when it comes to designing architecture (Mumtaz & Lubaina
Adnan Soni, 2009). It takes years of constant training and deliberation before firms start
acquiring more productive methodologies afforded by newer digital tools. BIM (Building
Information Management) is such an example of a digital tool which is now being used by
only a limited number of practices all over Pakistan whereas it has become a standard toolset
in a lot of other countries (Fatima, Saleem, & Alamgir, 2015), due to which design
methodologies are lagging behind in Pakistan.

Academic Disconnect
The current situation of Pakistan in terms of digital tools creates a two-fold problem at
the academic level, students enrolling into undergraduate architecture programs in Pakistan
are not well equipped to grasp digital tools while local architecture examples employing
cutting edge design tools are almost non-existent, with rare exceptions. Therefore, students
being taught contemporary architectural design tools are not able to imagine the real-world
applications. This disconnect hinders interest in the curriculum and lack of ownership when it
comes to assignments or projects pertaining to the tools being taught in class. The lack of
real-world examples to understand the potential of any software during training results in a
lack of motivation and knowledge retention (L. Olfman & Bostrom, 1991).
Parametric Design in CUI Lahore
Inception and Objective
Seeing as how parametric design is a growing trend in architecture globally and how
scripting algorithms to achieve innovative design solutions is the next inevitable step in
architecture design, it was decided to introduce formal training of parametric design as a
mandatory subject in the Department of Architecture at COMSATS University Islamabad,
Lahore Campus in 2017 under the leadership of Associate Professor of Architecture Waqar
Aziz (Head of Department, Department of Architecture and Design, CUI Lahore). Within the
current undergraduate program of architecture design, students are introduced to 3D
modelling and digital tools during fourth semester. Hence the parametric design course was
to be run during the fifth semester. At the time of inception, there were no other architecture
schools of Pakistan teaching parametric design as a dedicated subject (students interested in
parametric design in all architecture schools learned on their own), it was understood that in
order to assist in shifting the technological landscape in architecture practice of Pakistan, this
subject could initiate an interest and discourse regarding architecture design methodologies,
bringing students of Pakistan up to par with their global contemporaries.
Parametric Design Tool – Grasshopper
Grasshopper is a commonly used parametric design tool, released by Robert McNeel
& Associates in 2007 known then as Explicit History (later renamed as Grasshopper),
developed by David Rutten (Davis, 2013). Grasshopper is not a standalone software but
rather a plugin for Rhino3D, which is a popular 3D modelling tool used by architects and
students around the world. Since the release of Rhino3D 6.0, Grasshopper is included as a
default tool while previously users had to download and install it separately (Davidson,
2019).
Grasshopper uses the rendering capabilities of Rhino3D and provides an alternative
interface to script parametric design solutions while providing a real-time output in Rhino3D.
As per a Grasshopper forum post in 2013, developer David Rutten reported that on average
there are about 100 downloads per day and that total number of downloads for Grasshopper
are around 130,000 (Nick Tyrer, 2013).
Since Rhino3D as a design tool was already being taught at the Department of
Architecture in CUI Lahore, Grasshopper was the best option amongst different parametric
tools available.
Challenges
Before creating a course outline for this subject, some challenges and issues were
discussed within the department. These challenges (which are described in some detail
below) if not addressed, could result in lack of comprehension, knowledge retention and
interest in parametric design amongst students. While identifying and understanding these
issues, it gave the faculty an idea on how to teach this subject within context of architecture
education in Pakistan.
Background Knowledge of Computer Programming
The history and nature of parametric design is closely linked to the age of information
technology and while it borrows the idea of parameters from mathematics, the actual
application of scripting parametric design is akin to computer programming. It is not
uncommon to see architects around the world learning computer languages such as C# or
Python (both of which are also used within Grasshopper to develop functions). Since the
objective is to make use of the ever-increasing computing capabilities to design adaptive
processes for complex scenarios using parameters, architects in the near future will have to be
coders as well (Woodbury, 2010).
This implies that in the near future, students with prior knowledge of computer
programming or in the case of Pakistan, those who might have studied the subject of
computer science either in A-Levels, ICS (Intermediate of Computer Science) or equivalent,
would be ideal candidates to train as architects for parametric design. However, the current
admission criteria for architecture in Pakistan is based on engineering, arts, and mathematics.
Most of architecture students in Pakistan today have not studied computer sciences and are
unaware of programming concepts. This can result in a lack of technical bias in terms of
understanding therefore hindering learning of such tools (Burry, 2011).
Parametric vs Conventional Design Methods
Architecture students spend most of their credit hours in design labs normally known
as a design studio, in which projects are introduced with a set of problems and students have
to come up with design solutions. Conventionally, design solutions in studios are explored
through sketches, research, and model-making to get an idea of the project’s constraints and
site context. In later stages students draft architectural drawings and work on details.
Approaching design from the macro level and moving towards a micro level of design, this is
generally known as a top-down approach.
In contrast, parametric design challenges that notion by acting as a bottom-up design
method (Leach, 2009) since to design parametrically, one has to specifically identify
parameters, functions and relations to form a logic-driven process at an earlier stage. This is a
shift observed in architecture methodology as parametric scripting is gaining traction
globally, as discussed by architect and theorist Neil Leach. Since throughout the
undergraduate program students are designing using conventional means, designing through a
bottom-up approach is counter-intuitive for students when they are introduced to parametric
design.
Tutorial Based Software Training
Previously, software and digital tools have been taught as a series of components
known as tutorials. Tutorials conventionally start with an introduction to the interface of the
tool, followed by its various components, functions and tasks in a sequence of increasing
complexity. Currently, architecture institutions follow this method to teach several digital
tools. The skills acquired by students during the semester are then tested by an assignment or
exam.
Such tutorials are procedural in nature, as they introduce various procedures to
students as the training course progresses. While this approach can help teach specific tasks,
this is not enough to equip students with the knowledge to innovate on their own. Software
training also needs to have conceptual training (Lorne Olfman & Mandviwalla, 2006). As the
names implies, conceptual training is more concerned about learning how a tool functions
and understands user input. This can allow students to imagine possible benefits of a software
not discussed in class and allows them to explore on their own.
Procedural tutorials had significant relevance at a time when computer users were
using command-line based interfaces as opposed to a graphical user interface (GUI), because
users needed to provide precise input to accomplish a task. A GUI on the other hand provides
visual cues letting the user guess and learn as they use a software (Charney & Reder, 1986).
Current software tutorial courses in architecture schools of Pakistan have yet to adopt a more
conceptual approach as opposed to a procedural one.
Pedagogical Strategy
In light of the context and issues identified, the parametric design course was initiated
with constant changes and different teaching methodologies to understand how parametric
design could be taught in an effective manner, gradually moving away from a conventional
procedural tutorial based model to a model which focused on parametric design not just as a
tool but also a design paradigm, changing the way in which students understood design.
Since inception in 2017, the course has been run twice at time of writing this paper.
First as a semester long subject for third year students of architecture design and later as a
short summer workshop for a wider and more diverse student group; constantly noting
observations and judging the outcomes of the course to make changes to curriculum and
teaching methods in future.
As this is still an evolving course and more students will be introduced to parametric
design in years to come, this research can be considered as a work in progress, as more data is
gathered and the faculty develops a better understanding of applied parametric design
training.
Experimentation in Applied Parametric Design Training
Iteration 1 - Parametric Design Semester 2017
Due to lack of existing teaching models for digital tools in Pakistan, the first iteration
of the parametric design course in 2017 at CUI Lahore adapted mostly a procedural tutorial-
based teaching model. The semester duration allowed for roughly fifteen classes, one class
per week. The students were already taught Rhino3D in their fourth semester, which enabled
the class to start learning Grasshopper from the first week. The following diagram shows the
basic structure of the classes in terms of conceptual and procedural training for the semester:
Figure 1. Sequence and structure of procedural and conceptual components of parametric design training in relation to time
duration of the semester.
The parametric omelette. As parametric design is at times a counterintuitive
approach to design compared to the architecture studio, the course introduced students to the
parametric way of thinking through a very simple and non-architectural example known as
the parametric omelette. To demonstrate this example, students were given a thought
experiment which was as follows:
“How would you teach a machine how to make an omelette?”
Students had a general understanding of machines that they require an input after
which a function is performed, and the user receives an output. Since machines need simple
and precise instructions, the class started to break down the key components of an omelette
e.g. eggs, spices, herbs, cooking utensils, heat, oil etc. After all the key ingredients were
identified, students were asked to devise a process for each ingredient to achieve an omelette.
This started turning into a flowchart and the instructor guided this process to introduce basic
concepts of parametric design such as:
• Adding a variable “e” with the ingredient “eggs” so that the value can be changed
afterwards if more people need to eat an omelette.
• Adding a Boolean condition (True/False) next to the ingredient “cheese” so that a
cheese omelette can be acquired if need be.
• Adding “IF ELSE” conditions to functions such as cooking so that heat is provided to
the egg mixture until a certain required duration of time or temperature is achieved to
cook the omelette efficiently.
Figure 2. Example of a flowchart of a parametric omelette as result of the mental exercise conducted in class.
At the end of the session, the class had turned a recipe of an omelette into a visual
flowchart which defined the key parameters (ingredients, variables), functions (processes and
recipe steps) and could be modified to create any type of an omelette.
The main reason an omelette was chosen was to introduce very basic concepts of
logic and programming necessary for parametric design without letting the students feel
overwhelmed by complex architectural implications of parametric design. Food is something
students in Lahore, Pakistan are familiar with and fond of since it is an integral part of the
local culture. This added an element of humour, increasing motivation and students were
easily able to grasp basic concepts. Over time, the class revisited the idea of a recipe as an
analogy for parametric design to reinforce concepts.
The secondary reason why this exercise was conducted was not only the fact that
drawing flowcharts are a common method to understand logic and data flow in computer
programming, but to assist students in getting familiar with the GUI of Grasshopper within
Rhino3D. Grasshopper, in terms of interface design can be best described as a visual scripting
tool. Users designing using Grasshopper work on a blank 2-dimensional canvas, dragging
various components and functions, connecting various inputs and outputs in the form of
virtual wires, thereby scripting visually without actually learning to code (Grasshopper allows
for coding but a visual scripting interface makes parametric design more palatable and easier
to comprehend). The scripts created using Grasshopper resemble a flowchart hence making
the exercise an integral part of understanding how Grasshopper works.

Figure 3. Screenshot of a Grasshopper visual script (left) used to create a circle controlled by parameters, with its real-time
output in Rhino3D (right)
Course deliverable. Out of the fifteen classes, ten classes followed the conventional
procedural tutorial model, starting from the interface and gradually going through various
components of Grasshopper. The last four weeks were then reserved for knowledge
implementation. By working with a four-week long hypothetical project, students could
revise and practice what they had learned.
The objective was to enable retention of the various components of Grasshopper so
that they could start visualizing future possibilities of this tool as architects. The hypothetical
project was to design a pavilion for one of the courtyards of the Department of Architecture
and Design at CUI Lahore. The reason a pavilion was selected was that it did not have the
complexities of a conventional building. Students could easily focus on form-finding and
object creation using the newly acquired tool. Situating the hypothetical project within the
campus premises allowed for simulating a real architectural project thereby increasing
knowledge retention and independent learning (Navarro & Hoek, 2009). Since students were
already familiar with the space, they could relate to it and imagine the possibilities of
parametric design. To allow for a productive and cooperative environment, students were
divided into groups, whereby each group had to present their proposal and explain the
parametric process that they developed by end of the semester.
Feedback. The feedback from the students in general was that while the pavilion
project helped to revise and implement the knowledge acquired throughout the semester,
there was still certain disconnect between the conceptual and procedural components mainly
because the project was introduced at a much later stage, hence there was lack of effective
discussion regarding implementation of parametric design during the tutorial phase. This led
the faculty to believe that in order to improve upon the learning outcomes of parametric
design, the method of teaching needed to be reviewed and major restructuring of the
curriculum was in order.
Iteration 2 - Parametric Design Summer Workshop 2018
The experience of the first iteration of the course implied that it needed a better
sequencing of the procedural and conceptual tutorial phases of the course. In order to
experiment further and improve upon the course, it was decided that another iteration be run
during the summer break in the form a workshop. Apart from the opportunity to test a
different approach to teaching parametric design, another purpose of the workshop was to
create a platform to make parametric design methods more accessible to architects and
students of Lahore.
Challenges
As the conditions of the workshop were completely different, a direct objective
comparison was not expected between the first parametric design semester course and the
workshop. To study effectiveness based upon restructuring of the curriculum and to develop a
new teaching model, the following differences were taken into consideration:
Time duration. The workshop was of significantly shorter duration. A total of nine
classes with three consecutive workshop days (three hours per day) each week were planned.
Compared to a semester long course where classes were weekly and limited to two hours due
to credit hour limitations, retention was expected to be better due to shorter duration in
between classes and longer training sessions.
Procedural tutorials. The workshop had to deliver the same amount of procedural
knowledge in a much shorter span of time over the course of the workshop, which meant that
certain components had to be skipped. This was not seen as a disadvantage but rather helped
in focusing on key procedures and letting the students discover more solutions on their own.
A learning process which is based on self-discovery and exploration would not only lead to a
better understanding and knowledge retention but also increase confidence in usage of the
acquired knowledge (Bruner, 1997).
Number of students. The workshop was open to all age and experience groups but
due to its schedule constraints, only nine students applied. Compared to forty students during
the semester, this meant that an individual student had more access to instructors for one-on-
one teaching and feedback.
Diversity of students. During a semester at an undergraduate level, the class is
generally consistent in terms of existing knowledge and comprehension skills. However, in
the parametric workshop of 2018, students and professionals of all levels were present. The
final group of participants included undergraduate students of architecture, product design as
well as professional architects. Thus, additional time and effort was expected to ensure that
the entire group could progress at the same rate. However, this could also work as an
advantage to gauge different teaching methods by assessing student responses individually in
detail.
Revised Pedagogical Strategy
Keeping these key differences in mind, the workshop still could test the idea of
resequencing the conceptual and procedural components of parametric design. While the
pavilion project (first introduced during the preceding semester) was repeated with only
minor changes to allow for better comparison of teaching models. The main restructuring of
the curriculum was done in the following manner:
Anticipatory learning. Instead of waiting for the procedural and conceptual
components of parametric design to be taught, the hypothetical project was introduced on the
very first day to let students anticipate and effectively complete the learning objectives. By
knowing clearly what the required future objective is, anticipatory learning helps in an
improved attention and cognitive response while acquiring new knowledge (Butz, 2004).
Students were expected to imagine applications of parametric design while it was taught.
Hybrid conceptual and procedural learning. The conceptual aspect of parametric
design was not limited to initial classes but was continued in parallel to the entire duration of
the workshop along with the procedural components. This was planned to reinforce the logic,
possibilities, and a better understanding of parametric design, as this was an issue identified
after the first iteration of the course in 2017.
For this workshop, lectures pertaining to conceptual components of parametric design
were also conducted by Zeeshan Zaheer, currently Assistant Professor teaching architecture
design at CUI Lahore.
Prior exposure to GUI. One factor that did not come to attention until after the
semester course had ended was the fact that undergraduate students today have a better
understating of GUI (Graphical User Interface) compared to previous years. With personal
computing technology becoming increasingly affordable such as smartphones and laptops in
Pakistan, students at undergraduate level are not new to computers. Coupled with the fact that
students in Pakistan are increasingly using web applications and social media sites to the
extent that they can navigate through digital interfaces.
As Charney and Reder had highlighted in their research, procedural training of
software was more relevant when command-line interfaces were the norm or when people
were not familiar with any GUI (Charney & Reder, 1986). Keeping this in mind, procedural
components which focused on only GUI elements of Grasshopper were given lesser priority
in devising the course outline as compared to the functional components or conceptual
knowledge of parametric design.
Open-source e-learning. In addition to increasing usage of personal computing
technology and internet today in Pakistan (Pakistan Telecommunication Authority, 2019),
internet today is a convenient platform for free open-sourced and crowd-sourced e-learning
with teaching material in the form of video tutorials online. The official Grasshopper website
(www.grasshopper3d.com) also hosts numerous teaching materials and active forums for
learning parametric design free of cost. Teaching the same material in class was not
considered an efficient use of the limited time. Hence students were given reference links and
encouraged to explore online sources for learning purposes. For personalized feedback they
could always discuss any issues they faced while going through online training materials
hence letting students discover and feel more confident about the information they acquired
personally.
Individual projects. Since the group of participants was limited in number, the
hypothetical projects were to be designed individually rather than groups. This could allow
for more personalised hands-on training and with each project being designed personally,
students could feel an increased sense of ownership thereby engaging more actively and
learning more effectively (Ross, 1983). Since the group was also diverse in terms of
background knowledge (one student was studying product design at National College of Arts,
Lahore) they could define their own project outcome further increasing a sense of ownership.
Parametric omelette 2.0. As the student group for the workshop was more diverse in
terms of age, experience and prior knowledge, mental exercises such as the parametric
omelette to understand the basics of programming, logic and parametric design was deemed
even more relevant as it was based on common knowledge between all the students attending
the workshop. This could also develop a more welcoming, pleasant, and collaborative
atmosphere amongst the highly diverse group of students.
Figure 4. Sequence and structure of procedural and conceptual components of parametric design training in relation to time
duration of the workshop.
Feedback
By end of the three-week workshop, it was evident that the restructuring allowed for a
more productive environment for digital tool training for parametric design. Most distinctive
outcome was that due to the project being introduced in the beginning, students were clear in
terms of their learning objectives. Each class revolved around discussions between instructors
and students regarding implementation of Grasshopper for each student’s future project
proposal. Not only were students visualizing the various possibilities of components covered
in the workshop, but they were also exhibiting a higher sense of ownership in their projects.
The group of students produced a diverse set of ideas regarding how parametric design tools
could be used. The disconnect which students had reported during the semester course in
2017 was absent in the feedback.
As originally expected, even though the student group was diverse in terms of prior
knowledge, they were able to use mental exercises based on non-architectural examples (the
parametric omelette) to understand the underlying concepts of parametric design. Similar
short exercises were also introduced during the workshop in which students had to
parametrically think of very simple ideas such as developing a script in Grasshopper to
calculate the time difference between two values of time in hours, minutes, and seconds
Despite the many differences in groups and context of the fifth semester students in
comparison to the workshop participants, the updated structure’s effects were prominent.
This would enable us to review our original semester curriculum and develop it further.
Conclusions
As the course was introduced in late 2017, not enough time has passed to carry out
enough iterations of the parametric design curriculum to gather data. This is still a work in
progress, with a third iteration (semester course) expected to end in July 2019 and a fourth
iteration in the form of a workshop planned for August 2019. However, observations so far
have led us to innovate and improve productivity in terms of teaching parametric design in an
academic environment as exhibited by general student feedback and increasing sense of
ownership in the classroom.
Furthermore, understanding the levels of technological exposure of students today as
compared to a decade ago, parametric design curriculum can be structured to focus more on
implementation and usage of tools, achieving a balance between conceptual and procedural
training of software that is informed by the academic context of Pakistan today. This
information can also be used to revise teaching methods of any digital tool at undergraduate
level regardless of faculty.
What the second iteration (workshop 2018) also demonstrated was that students and
professionals from various backgrounds are interested in learning parametric design and
understand its future potential especially in context of Pakistan. The current practice of
architecture in Pakistan lacks the innovative tools and methodologies but workshops
accessible to a wider audience can potentially act as a starting point for awareness and
discourse regarding parametric design. What the Department of Architecture at COMSATS
University Islamabad, Lahore Campus hopes to achieve in the long run, is to engage more
students, architects, and schools of architecture in Pakistan so that future architects in
Pakistan are better equipped for the future of design.

References
Bruner, J. S. (1997). The Act of Discovery. In On Knowing: Essays for the Left Hand
(Eighth, pp. 81–96). https://doi.org/10.5840/intstudphil199931482
Bucci, F., & Mulazzani, M. (2002). Luigi Moretti: Works and Writings (1st ed.). Princeton
Architectural Press.
Burry, M. (2011). Scripting Cultures: Architectural Design and Programming (Vol. 1). John
Wiley and Sons Ltd.
Butz, M. V. (2004). Anticipation for learning, cognition and education. On the Horizon,
12(3), 111–116. https://doi.org/10.1108/10748120410555359
Ceccato, C. (1999). The Architect as Toolmaker: Computer-Based Generative Design Tools
and Methods. CAADRIA ’99: Proceedings of the Fourth Conference on Computer Aided
Architectural Design Research in Asia, 295–304.
Charney, D. H., & Reder, L. M. (1986). Designing Interactive Tutorials for Computer Users.
Human—Computer Interaction, 2(4), 297–317.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327051hci0204_2
Coulton, J. J. (1977). Greek Architects at Work: Problems of Structure and Design. Cornell
University Press.
Davidson, S. (2019). Grasshopper: algorithmic modeling for Rhino. Retrieved June 29, 2019,
from https://www.grasshopper3d.com/
Davis, D. (2013). A History of Parametric. Retrieved June 26, 2019, from
https://www.danieldavis.com/a-history-of-parametric/
Fatima, A., Saleem, M., & Alamgir, S. (2015). Adoption and Scope of Building Information
Modelling (BIM) in Construction Industry of Pakistan. 6th International Conference on

Structural Engineering and Construction Management 2015, (December), 90–99.
Kandy, Sri Lanka: Nethwin Printers.
Hewitt, M. (1985). Representational Forms and Modes of Conception: An Approach to the
History of Architectural Drawing. Journal of Architectural Education, 39(2), 2–9.
Huerta, S. (2006). Structural Design in the Work of Gaudí. Architectural Science Review,
49(4), 324–339. https://doi.org/10.3763/asre.2006.4943
Kolarevic, B. (2001). Digital Fabrication : Manufacturing Architecture in the Information
Age. Proceedings of the Twenty First Annual Conference of the Association for
Computer-Aided Design in Architecture, 268–278.
Leach, N. (2009). Digital Morphogenesis. Architectural Design, 79(1), 32–37.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ad.806
Moretti, L. (1970). Ricerca Matematica in Architettura e Urbanisticâ.
Mumtaz, S. N., & Lubaina Adnan Soni. (2009). DIGITAL ARCHITECTURE PRAXIS AND
ITS STATUS IN PAKISTAN. Journal of Research in Architecture and Planning, NED
University of Engineering and Technology, 8, 51–56. Retrieved from
https://jrap.neduet.edu.pk/arch-journal/JRAP-2009/5-ShabnamNigar.pdf
Navarro, E. O., & Hoek, A. van der. (2009). On the Role of Learning Theories in Furthering
Software Engineering Education. In Software Engineering: Effective Teaching and
Learning Approaches and Practices (p. 40). Information Science Reference.
Nick Tyrer. (2013). Total number of GH users worldwide? - Grasshopper. Retrieved June 29,
2019, from https://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/total-number-of-gh-users-
worldwide
Olfman, L., & Bostrom, R. P. (1991). End‐user software training: an experimental

comparison of methods to enhance motivation. Information Systems Journal, 1(4), 249–
266. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2575.1991.tb00061.x
Olfman, Lorne, & Mandviwalla, M. (2006). Conceptual versus Procedural Software Training
for Graphical User Interfaces: A Longitudinal Field Experiment. MIS Quarterly, 18(4),
405. https://doi.org/10.2307/249522
Pakistan Telecommunication Authority. (2019). Telecom Indicators | PTA. Retrieved June
30, 2019, from https://www.pta.gov.pk/en/telecom-indicators/1
Roopinder Tara. (2017). AutoCAD Is Still the Champ. Retrieved June 26, 2019, from
www.engineering.com website:
https://www.engineering.com/DesignSoftware/DesignSoftwareArticles/ArticleID/14783
/AutoCAD-Is-Still-the-Champ.aspx
Ross, S. M. (1983). Increasing the Meaningfulness of Quantitative Material by Adapting
Context to Student Background. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(4), 519–529.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.75.4.519
Stover, C., & Weisstein, E. W. (2019). Parametric Equations. Mathworld. Retrieved from
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ParametricEquations.html
Sutherland, I. E. (1963). Sketchpad : A Man-Machine Graphical Communication System ,
Unclassified. Doctor, 23(296), 329–346. https://doi.org/10.1145/62882.62943
Weisberg, D. E. (2008). The Engineering Design Revolution: The People, Companies and
Computer Systems That Changed Forever the Practice of Engineering. Retrieved June
26, 2019, from http://cadhistory.net/
Woodbury, R. (2010). Elements of Parametric Design. In Routledge (Vol. 1). Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2013.04.001%5Cnhttp://journals.cambridge.org/abstract
_S0140525X00005756%5CnLib scanned%5Cnhttp://www.br-
ie.org/pub/index.php/rbie/article/view/1293%5Cnhttp://www-
psych.nmsu.edu/~pfoltz/reprints/Edmedia99.html%5Cnhttp://urd.

Applied Parametric Software Training in Pakistan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Applied Parametric Software Training in Pakistan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Running head: APPLIED PARAMETRIC SOFTWARE TRAINING IN PAKISTAN 1

Teaching to Hybrid Teaching Models

Muhammad Talha Muftee

Department of Architecture and Design

COMSATS University Islamabad, Lahore Campus, Pakistan

Conventional practice for teaching digital tools in architecture design specifically in

Pakistan involves a sequential tutorial-based curriculum which introduces various

computing devices and architecture design is going through a technological and

conventional software training approach. This research paper is a documentation of an on-

Architecture, COMSATS University Islamabad, Lahore Campus, Pakistan. The class is a

basic introduction to parametric design tools, specifically Grasshopper (a plugin for

Rhino3D). Introduced in undergraduate curriculum in 2017, the parametric software training

the future of architecture design.

Keywords: software training, architecture design, digital tools, parametric design,

History of Architecture Design Tools

The evolution of architectural design methods whether to design buildings or urban

personnel involved with the construction.

orthographical drawings usually referred to as plans, sections or elevations of a building or

standards which are being used even today.

Digital Design Tools

around the world (Roopinder Tara, 2017) including Pakistan.

learning and training opportunities.

Origins of Parametric Design

architecture design. Moreover, changing economic, social, and environmental conditions

require architects to continuously revise their design tools and processes.

new architecture paradigm known as parametric design. To define simply, a parametric

a change in the final design output.

While the history of parametric equations is extensive in mathematics and science, in

once understands parametric design.

One example which is considered an origin of parametric design is the work of

banner of “Parametric Architecture” which showcased how a stadium could be designed

through a parametric process in 1960 (Bucci & Mulazzani, 2002).

Parametric Design Today

Since Sutherland’s Sketchpad program in 1962, computing capabilities, software and

architects to explore multi-disciplinary design processes, overlapping architecture design with

subjects such as computer programming and emerging technologies such as artificial

intelligence and 3d printing. Since parametric design is essentially a system in which

develop algorithms to gain more design flexibility (Woodbury, 2010).

At institutional level, an increasing number of architecture schools are now teaching

Digital Tools in Pakistan

deployed on a massive scale, skipping any intermediate development stages. Consequently, it

methodologies are lagging behind in Pakistan.

Parametric Design in CUI Lahore

Inception and Objective

architecture design, it was decided to introduce formal training of parametric design as a

mandatory subject in the Department of Architecture at COMSATS University Islamabad,

current undergraduate program of architecture design, students are introduced to 3D

schools of Pakistan teaching parametric design as a dedicated subject (students interested in

bringing students of Pakistan up to par with their global contemporaries.

Parametric Design Tool – Grasshopper

Grasshopper is a commonly used parametric design tool, released by Robert McNeel

Grasshopper uses the rendering capabilities of Rhino3D and provides an alternative

are around 130,000 (Nick Tyrer, 2013).

Background Knowledge of Computer Programming

application of scripting parametric design is akin to computer programming. It is not

objective is to make use of the ever-increasing computing capabilities to design adaptive

coders as well (Woodbury, 2010).

computer science either in A-Levels, ICS (Intermediate of Computer Science) or equivalent,

understanding therefore hindering learning of such tools (Burry, 2011).

Parametric vs Conventional Design Methods

generally known as a top-down approach.

In contrast, parametric design challenges that notion by acting as a bottom-up design

shift observed in architecture methodology as parametric scripting is gaining traction

Tutorial Based Software Training