1. Introduction

Architectural design is a multifaceted discipline positioned at the intersection of science and art. This dual nature necessitates an educational approach that integrates both technical precision and creative exploration. Within this framework, the tools employed during the design process—particularly in studio-based learning environments—play a pivotal role in shaping how students conceptualize, visualize, and communicate architectural ideas.

Architectural education therefore functions as an experimental domain where various representational techniques, cognitive strategies, and technological tools converge. Among these, computer-aided design (CAD) tools have gained substantial prominence since the late 20th century, fundamentally transforming pedagogical practices in architecture schools (Sanders, 1996). Originally developed as a technical drafting aid, CAD has since evolved to support visualization, design development, and communication workflows. Research suggests that CAD enhances analytical reasoning, increases accuracy, and improves efficiency in architectural education (Özdemir Işık, 2017).

Nevertheless, the integration of CAD tools into early design education remains a subject of debate. While many educators acknowledge CAD’s advantages in improving technical proficiency, concerns persist regarding its impact on students’ creativity and spatial cognition—particularly in comparison to traditional hand-drawing methods (Şenyapılı & Başa, 2006; Pektaş & Erkip, 2006). These ongoing discussions highlight the need to critically examine the pedagogical role of CAD within a hybrid educational model that embraces both analog and digital design methodologies.

1.1. Research Problem and Aim

Despite the widespread adoption of computer-aided design (CAD) programs in architecture schools, a significant gap remains in the empirical understanding of how these tools influence novice students’ development across three key domains: technical knowledge, creativity, and spatial perception. While existing literature frequently emphasizes the technical benefits of CAD or critiques its limitations in fostering creativity, relatively few studies offer a holistic, student-centered assessment grounded in first-hand educational experiences.

This study aims to address this research gap by investigating first-year architecture students’ perceptions of CAD within the context of their design studio education. Specifically, the study seeks to:

Evaluate the impact of CAD on students’ technical drawing skills and knowledge acquisition.
Examine the perceived influence of CAD on creative thinking and design autonomy.
Explore students’ preferences for hybrid workflows that integrate CAD and traditional hand-drawing techniques.

To guide the investigation, the study poses the following research question:

How do first-year architecture students perceive the role of CAD programs in shaping their technical, creative, and spatial competencies within studio-based education?

This central question is supported by the following hypotheses:

H1: CAD programs enhance the technical knowledge and drawing accuracy of architecture students.
H2: CAD programs contribute positively to the creative design skills of architecture students.
H3: CAD programs are used alongside traditional hand-drawing methods in the architectural design process, rather than fully replacing them.

By addressing these questions, this study contributes to architectural pedagogy by offering a data-driven framework for the integrated use of digital and analog methods in early-stage design education.

1.2. Literature Review

Research on the role of computer-aided design (CAD) in architectural education can be broadly categorized into three thematic areas: (1) the technical and pedagogical contributions of CAD tools, (2) the impact of CAD on creative processes, and (3) integrative approaches that combine traditional and digital design methods.

1.2.1. Technical and Pedagogical Contributions

CAD tools significantly enhance students’ abilities to comprehend technical drawing details, manipulate complex geometries, and develop advanced visualization skills. Furthermore, they facilitate collaborative practices within digital learning environments. For example, Stam et al. (2022) emphasized the role of digital tools in supporting open-design processes and remote collaboration. Hettithanthri and Hansen (2022) underscored CAD’s value in promoting analytical thinking and complex form generation in studio contexts. Similarly, Ceylan et al. (2024) highlighted the growing reliance on digital platforms—particularly in response to the shift toward online education during the COVID-19 pandemic. Collectively, these studies affirm the pedagogical utility of CAD in improving both the efficiency and the quality of design education.

1.2.2. Effects on Creative Processes

The relationship between CAD and creativity remains complex and context-dependent. Basa and Şenyapılı (2005) argued that software interfaces and built-in templates can influence students’ visual languages and aesthetic choices. In contrast, Şenyapılı and Başa (2006) suggested that excessive dependence on software precision may inhibit exploratory thinking and conceptual development. More recently, Chaudhuri and Dhar (2024) found that digital platforms facilitate iterative evaluation and feedback, potentially enhancing creative processes. However, Kamel and Khalil (2023) reported that the use of CAD tools during early design phases neither significantly enhances nor restricts creativity, implying that the influence of CAD depends heavily on how and when it is employed.

1.2.3. Integrative Approaches: Traditional vs. Digital Methods

Studies comparing traditional hand drawing and digital tools generally advocate for hybrid approaches. Yıldırım et al. (2010) contended that combining manual sketching with digital modeling supports both conceptual ideation and technical refinement. Pektaş and Erkip (2006) emphasized the necessity of adequate training, noting that students often experience a steep learning curve when initially exposed to CAD tools. Ebenezer et al. (2022) identified significant disparities in students’ access to digital resources and varying proficiency levels, both of which influence educational outcomes. Similarly, Robertson et al. (2007) and Utterback et al. (2006) warned that an overemphasis on digital precision may detract from broader design thinking skills. Yıldızoglu (2024) concluded that using sketching and modeling in parallel fosters more effective learning by balancing creative spontaneity with technical accuracy.

Emerging technologies such as virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) are also expanding spatial understanding in architectural education. Veliz Reyes (2024) demonstrated that AR enhances studio learning by enabling interactive 3D visualizations. Özgen et al. (2021) found that VR-based immersive methods support both creativity and spatial reasoning, complementing rather than replacing traditional approaches.

Educators’ perspectives on CAD integration vary significantly. While some embrace CAD and BIM tools as essential components of contemporary pedagogy (Antonietti & Giorgetti, 2006), others remain skeptical, fearing a loss of traditional design values (Robertson et al., 1995; Çil & Pakdil, 2007). Şenyapılı and Başa (2006) described persistent debates over whether architectural education should prioritize manual skills or technological fluency. Nevertheless, students increasingly view digital tools as indispensable to contemporary architectural practice (Zelef, Bursa, & Çakıcı, 2011; Özdemir Işık, 2017).

In summary, the literature supports the view that architectural education benefits from a balanced integration of manual and digital design techniques. Building on these insights, this study investigates the pedagogical implications of CAD tools for students’ technical development, spatial understanding, and creative practice. It emphasizes that carefully embedding digital tools within studio workflows can foster both innovation and skill acquisition in architectural education.

Methodology

This study adopts a mixed-method research design, combining both quantitative and qualitative approaches to assess the impact of computer-aided design (CAD) programs in early-stage architectural education. The methodology is structured into four distinct phases: (1) research design development, (2) data collection, (3) data analysis, and (4) interpretation of findings (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Research Methodology Flowchart

To achieve the objectives of this study, a structured research design was formulated, incorporating a clearly defined empirical component centered on a survey aimed at capturing student perceptions. The survey instrument consisted primarily of demographic questions and Likert-scale items, along with a single open-ended question designed to elicit more nuanced individual reflections.

The target population comprised first-year architecture students at Bursa Technical University who had completed the introductory course “Computer-Aided Architectural Design 1.” This cohort of 40 students represented the entire first-year student body within the architecture department, ensuring full participation and enhancing the generalizability of the findings within the institutional context.

A convenience sampling strategy was adopted, justified by the need to capture a complete spectrum of first-time CAD users with consistent exposure to the same course content and instruction. Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the Bursa Technical University Ethics Committee (Approval Code: BTU-2023/ARCH-011). Participation was voluntary, and students were assured of the anonymity and confidentiality of their responses.

The survey comprised three main components:

Demographic and Background Information: This section assessed students’ prior experience with CAD tools and their current usage of design software.
Perceptions of CAD Impact: Likert-scale items evaluated students’ views on the effects of CAD on their technical proficiency, creativity, spatial understanding, workflow preferences, and future intentions.
Qualitative Reflections: A single open-ended question invited students to articulate personal insights regarding how CAD influenced their design education, providing a richer qualitative dimension.

Quantitative data from the Likert-scale responses were analyzed using SPSS 28.0, applying descriptive statistical methods—namely, frequency distributions and percentage calculations—to identify prevailing response trends. A 75% agreement threshold was used to determine statistically significant findings.

Qualitative data obtained from the open-ended responses were subjected to inductive content analysis. Responses were systematically coded to extract recurring themes, personal experiences, and unique perspectives. These findings were subsequently triangulated with the quantitative data to enhance the depth and validity of the overall analysis and interpretation.

Findings

This section presents the research findings in a structured manner, beginning with a quantitative analysis of the survey data, followed by a qualitative interpretation derived from the open-ended responses. The results are organized in alignment with the study’s research questions and are clearly differentiated between descriptive reporting and interpretive commentary.

Quantitative findings are conveyed through summary tables that display the raw statistical outcomes. These are complemented by narrative explanations highlighting key patterns and notable trends. In keeping with academic writing conventions, direct references to external literature are excluded from this section; instead, theoretical comparisons and interpretive discussions are reserved for the subsequent Discussion section.

3.1. Participant Demographics and CAD Experience

Table 4 provides a summary of the demographic characteristics and pre-university CAD experience of the 40 participating students. The majority of respondents (95%) were first-year architecture students, and 80% indicated that they had no prior experience with CAD programs before entering university.

Table 4. Profile of participating students

Category	Options/Details	Count	Percentage (%)
Gender	Female	30	75%
	Male	10	25%
Class (Year of study)	1st-year	38	95%
	2nd-year	2	5%
Used a CAD program before university?	No	32	80%
	Yes (Secondary school)	2	5%
	Yes (High school)	4	10%
	Yes (Associate’s degree)	2	5%
Program used before (if any)	None	32	80%
	AutoCAD	5	12%
	Other CAD programs	3	8%
Programs currently used in studio	AutoCAD	25	62.5%
	SketchUp	3	7.5%
	Revit	1	2.5%
	ArchiCAD	1	2.5%
	Other software	10	25%

The data underscore the need for foundational instruction in CAD, as the majority of students began the program without prior exposure to such tools. AutoCAD emerged as the most commonly used software, consistent with the curriculum, although a smaller subset of students reported utilizing alternative digital design applications.

3.2. Students’ Perceptions of CAD in Design Education

Table 5 presents a summary of student responses to key survey statements regarding the impact of CAD on their technical proficiency, creative development, and spatial understanding. The table displays levels of agreement with various statements concerning the use of CAD in architectural education.

Table 5. Summary of survey responses on CAD’s impact

Survey Statement (Abbreviated)	% Agree	% Neutral	% Disagree
Improved perception of 2D architectural drawings	73%	22%	5%
Enhanced creativity in 2D spatial design	65%	23%	12%
Improved ability to create/refine 2D drawings	90%	8%	2%
Helped develop technical knowledge	95%	5%	0%
Plan to use AutoCAD with hand-drawing	85%	10%	5%
Plan to use only AutoCAD	15%	43%	42%
Plan to use AutoCAD in presentation phase	50%	30%	20%
Plan to use AutoCAD with other software	86%	10%	4%
Drawing on a computer is more efficient	85%	10%	5%
Drawing on a computer is more difficult	33%	15%	52%
Drawing on a computer speeds up the process	68%	22%	10%
Drawing on a computer shortens project time	65%	25%	10%
Drawing on a computer reduces material costs	50%	35%	15%

3.3. Key Trends and Observations

Based on the summarized data, several key findings were identified (see Figure 2):

Technical Development: A substantial majority of students (90–95%) acknowledged that CAD contributed to improving their technical drawing accuracy, suggesting that the learning objectives associated with CAD instruction were effectively met.
Creativity and Expression: While 65% of students found CAD beneficial for fostering creativity, 12% disagreed and 23% remained neutral. These mixed responses reflect diverse individual experiences and indicate that CAD’s support for creative expression is not universally perceived.
Hybrid Use Preference: A total of 85% of students expressed a preference for using CAD in combination with hand drawing, whereas only 15% intended to rely solely on CAD. This reveals a strong inclination toward blended workflows in design practice.
Tool Integration and Workflow: Most students (86%) indicated plans to use AutoCAD alongside other software tools in future design tasks, viewing CAD not as a stand-alone solution but as one component within a broader digital toolkit.
Efficiency Perception: Approximately 85% of respondents considered CAD to be more efficient than hand drawing, and 68% noted that it accelerated their design process. However, 33% found CAD more difficult to use, indicating the presence of a learning curve for some students.
Cost Implications: Only 50% of participants believed that CAD helps reduce material costs. The remaining students either disagreed or were uncertain, likely due to the financial burden of hardware and software requirements.

Figure 2. Student Responses to Survey Statements.

3.4. Qualitative Student Feedback

The open-ended responses provided by students enriched the statistical findings by offering contextual depth and personal insights:

Students expressed appreciation for CAD’s role in producing clean, accurate, and professional-quality drawings.
Some participants reported that CAD constrained their creative process during the early design stages, citing issues such as “over-focusing on technicalities” or “designing rigidly to the grid.”
Others noted that the precision and editability of CAD tools increased their confidence in tackling complex design tasks.

4.Discussion and Conclusion

The findings of this study offer nuanced insights into the pedagogical integration of computer-aided design (CAD) in architectural education, particularly among first-year students. The results confirm that CAD plays a pivotal role in enhancing technical knowledge, spatial understanding, and fluency in digital workflows. Simultaneously, the evidence affirms the enduring educational value of traditional hand-drawing methods in fostering creativity, spontaneity, and conceptual development. This dual recognition illustrates an ongoing pedagogical shift toward hybrid design approaches that integrate analog and digital modalities.

In terms of technical accuracy, over 90% of students reported improvements following CAD training. This outcome aligns with Zelef, Bursa, and Çakıcı’s (2011) notion of “creative imitation,” whereby students internalize formal design standards through replicative digital drafting. Reported gains in precision, scale control, and error correction also reinforce Yıldırım, Yavuz, and İnan’s (2010) emphasis on CAD’s role in promoting production efficiency. However, the assumption that CAD universally accelerates workflows is challenged by student feedback, which pointed to context-dependent efficiency—that is, while CAD expedites production tasks, it may impede freehand ideation and conceptual exploration. This observation supports arguments by Şenyapılı and Başa (2006) and Yıldızoglu (2024), who suggest that hand-drawing and CAD serve distinct yet complementary roles in design education.

A particularly salient insight is the strong student preference for hybrid workflows. Most participants advocated for using CAD in conjunction with sketching—employing hand-drawing techniques during early ideation and transitioning to CAD for development and presentation phases. This duality echoes Pektaş and Erkip’s (2006) caution against early over-reliance on CAD and highlights the need for pedagogical strategies that maintain a balanced use of design tools. Instructor emphasis on sketching in early studio courses appears to influence this equilibrium, while students’ enthusiasm for digital tools suggests readiness for more advanced CAD integration in later stages of the curriculum.

Notably, this study challenges long-standing assumptions about gender-based disparities in CAD use. Earlier studies (e.g., Dambrot et al., 1985; Shashaani, 1997) suggested that female students were less engaged with technical tools. In contrast, female students in this cohort exhibited high levels of enthusiasm for CAD—surpassing their male counterparts in some areas—indicating a shift in attitudes toward digital literacy and underlining the importance of equitable access to training and resources.

Qualitative responses further substantiated these findings. Students reported that CAD supported not only professional presentation but also iterative design thinking. The ability to rapidly revise and maintain consistency across drawing sets fostered a mindset of continuous refinement. Several students noted that mastering CAD boosted their confidence in addressing complex spatial problems, resonating with Işık’s (2017) interpretation of CAD as a cognitive scaffold for spatial reasoning. At the same time, some participants expressed concerns about “CAD traps,” such as premature detailing or rigid constraints dictated by software interfaces. These insights underscore the need for guided instruction on the strategic and reflective use of digital tools.

Importantly, students did not perceive CAD as a substitute for creativity but rather as a supportive framework. The notion of moving fluidly between sketching and CAD—depending on the design phase—mirrors real-world architectural workflows. This reinforces the pedagogical imperative of embedding CAD instruction within the broader studio process, thereby cultivating students’ ability to critically select tools appropriate to each stage of design. Such an approach fosters not only technical competence but also metacognitive awareness in design decision-making.

Overall, this study contributes to the expanding discourse on digitally augmented pedagogy by demonstrating students’ recognition of CAD’s utility beyond drafting tasks—particularly in managing complexity, testing alternatives, and refining outputs. At the same time, the findings reaffirm that conceptual creativity remains deeply rooted in analog practices such as sketching and visual ideation. Therefore, architectural educators should resist binary thinking that separates manual and digital modes and instead cultivate multimodal design literacy.

In conclusion, the integration of CAD into first-year architectural education enhances technical skills, supports visual thinking, and prepares students for contemporary professional demands. However, CAD should not—and cannot—replace traditional hand-drawing techniques. The hybrid model, strongly preferred by students, affirms the complementary strengths of both approaches. Moving forward, architectural curricula should be designed to facilitate fluid transitions between media, fostering an environment of experimentation, reflection, and adaptability. This pedagogical pluralism, as evidenced in this study, equips future architects with both the precision of technology and the intuition of craft—an essential combination in today’s increasingly complex design landscape.

5.Future Research

This study highlights several directions for future research on CAD in architectural education. Longitudinal studies could examine whether students’ initial preference for hybrid workflows persists over time. Investigating the relationship between CAD usage and project quality or creativity metrics would offer deeper insights into its pedagogical impact.

Further research should also explore the integration of emerging tools such as BIM, parametric design, and VR/AR to ensure curricula remain aligned with evolving professional practices. Examining instructors’ attitudes toward digital tools and evaluating graduates’ preparedness for real-world design environments would help guide curricular adjustments.

Ultimately, future research should focus on refining the balance between analog and digital methods to support both technical proficiency and creative exploration in architectural education.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the students of Bursa Technical University for their voluntary participation in the study and the Department of Architecture for supporting the data collection process.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Conflicts of Interest

The author(s) report no conflicts of interest.

Data availability statement

The data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical approval was obtained from the Bursa Technical University Ethics Committee (Approval Code: BTU-2023/ARCH-011).

References

Antonietti, A., & Giorgetti, M. (2006). Teachers’ beliefs about learning from multimedia. Computers in Human Behavior, 22(2), 267–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2004.06.002

Basa, İ., & Şenyapılı, B. (2005). The (In)secure position of the design jury towards computer-generated presentations. Design Studies, 26(3), 257–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2004.09.006

Bektas Ekici, B., Akyildiz, N. A., Karabatak, S., et al. (2024). Architecture students’ attitudes toward emergency distance education and elements affecting their success in design studios: A sample from Turkey. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 34, 853–873. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-023-09842-w

Chaudhuri, N. B., & Dhar, D. (2024). Digitizing creativity evaluation in design education: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 34, 1211–1242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-023-09846-6

Çil, E., & Pakdil, O. (2007). Design instructors’ perspectives on the role of computers in architectural education: A case study. METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 24(2), 123–136.

Dambrot, F. H., Watkins-Malek, M. A., Silling, S. M., Marshall, R. S., & Garver, J. A. (1985). Correlates of sex differences in attitudes toward and involvement with computers. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 27(1), 71–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(85)90053-3

Ebenezer, J., Sitthiworachart, J., & Na, K. S. (2022). Architecture students’ conceptions, experiences, perceptions, and feelings of learning technology use: Phenomenography as an assessment tool. Education and Information Technologies, 27, 1133–1157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10654-5

Hettithanthri, U., & Hansen, P. (2022). Design studio practice in the context of architectural education: A narrative literature review. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 32, 2343–2364. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-021-09694-2

Kamel, M. A. E., & Khalil, M. W. I. (2023). The impact of using computer-aided design (CAD) on the creativity of architecture students. Journal for Educators, Teachers and Trainers, 14(4), 245–256. https://doi.org/10.47750/jett.2023.14.04.021

Lousberg, L., van Rooij, R., Jansen, S., et al. (2020). Reflection in design education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 30, 885–897. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09532-6

Mıhlayanlar, E., & Tachir, G. (2019). Mimarlık eğitiminde bilgisayar destekli tasarımdan bina enformasyonuna. Artium, 17(2), 167–179.

Özdemir Işık, B. (2017). Contribution of computer-aided design programs to architectural education. The Journal of International Social Research, 10(51), 777–783. http://dx.doi.org/10.17719/jisr.2017.1814

Özgen, D. S., Afacan, Y., & Sürer, E. (2021). Usability of virtual reality for basic design education: A comparative study with paper-based design. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 31, 357–377. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09554-0

Pektaş, Ş. T., & Erkip, F. (2006). Attitudes of design students toward computer usage in design. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 16(1), 79–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-005-3175-0

Robertson, B. F., Walther, J., & Radcliffe, D. F. (2007). Creativity and the use of CAD tools: Lessons for engineering design education from industry. Journal of Mechanical Design, 129(7), 753–760. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.2722329

Robertson, S. I., Calder, J., Fung, P., Jones, A., & O’Shea, T. (1995). Computer attitudes in an English secondary school. Computers & Education, 24(2), 73–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-1315(94)00072-H

Sanders, K. (1996). The Digital Architect: A Common Sense Approach to Computer-Aided Design. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Shashaani, L. (1997). Gender differences in computer attitudes and use among college students. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 16(1), 37–51. https://doi.org/10.2190/Y8U7-AMMA-WQUT-R512

Stam, L., Ostuzzi, F., & Heylighen, A. (2022). Open design: An actual topic in architectural education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 32, 667–693. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09607-9

Sinnamon, C., & Miller, E. (2022). Architectural concept design process impacted by body and movement. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 32(2), 1079–1102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09636-4

Svenningsson, J. (2020). The Mitcham score: Quantifying students’ descriptions of technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 30, 995–1014. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09530-8

Şenyapılı, B., & Başa, İ. (2006). The shifting tides of academe: Oscillation between hand and computer in architectural education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 16(3), 273–283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-005-5052-2

Utterback, J. M., Ekman, S., Sanderson, S. W., Vedin, B.-A., Verganti, R., Tether, B., & Alvarez, E. (2006). Design-Inspired Innovation. Singapore: World Scientific. https://doi.org/10.1142/6052

Veliz Reyes, A. (2024). A multimodal study of augmented reality in the architectural design studio. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-024-09895-5

Yalınay Çinici, Ş. (2007). Gelassenheit: Dilemma of computational thinking in architecture. In Proceedings of the 25th eCAADe Conference (pp. 275–282). Frankfurt, Germany: eCAADe. https://doi.org/10.52842/conf.ecaade.2007.275

Yıldırım, T. Ö., Yavuz, A., & İnan, N. (2010). Comparison of Traditional and Digital Visualization Technologies in Architectural Design Education. Journal of Information Technologies, 3(3), 17–26.

Yıldızoglu, N. (2024). Sketching versus digital design tools in architectural design. JCoDe: Journal of Computational Design, 5(2), 301–316. https://doi.org/10.53710/jcode.1504947

Zelef, H., Bursa, N., & Çakıcı, Z. F. (2011). An essay on representation methods in architectural education: Houses. Mimarlık (Architecture) Journal, 3(7), 100–108.

The Role of Computer-Aided Design in Architectural Education 1