DIFFERENT EDUCATIONAL APPROACHES IN DESIGN STUDIO

Begüm Erçevik Sönmez

Abstract


Purpose

In the architectural design studio education, series of approaches, such as vertical, traditional, constructivist or virtual, are executed. In this research, an experiment was executed with the aim of revealing the effects of different architectural design studio approaches through the comparisons of student assessments. The study was based on the research question related to which of the approaches applied in the architectural design studio is the successful and productive one. The research hypothesized that in architectural design education, the independent design studio approach is more successful than the controlled studio approach.

Design/Methodology/Approach

Two different approaches were compared. The independent studio approach, in which students studied freely in studio milieu, was applied full-time 9 hours a week session in the Fall Semester. The controlled design studio approach, executed as two half days per week in the Spring Semester, proceeded with the desk critiques in a group supervised by an instructor. At the end of each semester a questionnaire that evaluated each design studio approach was conducted to 44 third-year design studio students.

Findings

The controlled design studio appeared to be a more dynamic approach in which following on the critiques of the instructor was ease. The group instructor provided sufficient time to all students for the critiques, whereas in the independent studio approach, the interaction between the instructors and the students was weak. Following up the critiques of different instructors was a difficult process. The controlled design studio was found to be more successful than the independent studio approach. The hypothesis of the research is not confirmed.

Research Limitations/Implications

The most important limitation of this study was that the comparisons were only made through the students’ assessments, and the instructors were not included in the research.

Social/Practical Implications

The meetings with the instructors should be arranged twice a week to keep students under control of instructors, and to prevent the reluctance of the students in the design studio.

Originality/Value

This study makes a difference in comparing studio approaches and contributes to the discussions on architectural design studio education.


Keywords


Architectural design, design education, design studio, educational approaches

Full Text:

PDF

References


Adıgüzel Özbek D., Melikoğlu Eke, A. S., Yücesan, E. & Ozar, B. (2018). Vertical design studio experience in interior architecture education, Online Journal of Art and Design, 6(2), 159-175.

Afacan, Y. (2012). Investigating the effects of group working in studying interior architecture, Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 51, 506- 511.

Akalın, A. & Sezal, İ. (2009). The importance of conceptual and concrete modelling in architectural design education, The International Journal of Art and Design Education (JADE), 28(1), 14-24.

Ciravoğlu, A. (2003). Mimari tasarım eğitiminde formel ve enformel çalışmalar üzerine, yapı [About the formal and informal studies in architectural design education], Yapı, 257, 43-47.

Ciravoğlu, A. (2014). Notes on architectural education: an experimental approach to design studio, Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 152, 7-12.

Demirbaş¸ O. O. & Demirkan, H. (2003). Focus on architectural design process through learning styles, Design Studies, 24(5), 437-456.

Demirbaş¸ O. O. & Demirkan, H. (2007). Learning styles of design students and the relationship of academic performance and gender in design education, Learning and Instruction, 17(3), 345-359.

Demirkan, H. & Afacan, Y. (2012). Assessing creativity in design education: Analysis of creativity factors in the first-year design studio, Design Studies, 33(3), 262-278.

Ketizmen, G. (2003). Mimari tasarım stüdyosunda çalışma yöntemleri: Anadolu Üniversitesi mimarlık bölümü örneği, [Study methods in architectural design studio: The example of Anadolu University department of architecture], EgeMimarlık, 3(47), 32-34.

Kurt, S. (2009). An analytic study on the traditional studio environments and the use of the constructivist studio in the architectural design education, Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 401-408.

Kurt, S. (2011). Use of constructivist approach in architectural education, Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 3980–3988.

Kvan, T. & Yunyan, J. (2005). Students’ learning styles and their correlation with performance in architectural design studio, Design Studies, 26(1), 19-34.

Mutlu Danacı, H. (2015). Creativity and knowledge in architectural education, Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174, 1309-1312.

Nik Lukman Nik Ibrahim & Uteberta, N. (2011). Learning in architecture design studio, Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 60, 30-35.

Oh, Y., Ishizaki, S., Gross, M. D. & Yi-Luen Do, E. (2013). A theoretical framework of design critiquing in architecture studios, Design Studies, 34(3), 302-325.

Önal, G. K. & Turgut, H. (2017). Cultural schema and design activity in an architectural design studio, Frontiers of Architectural Research, 6(2), 183–203.

Özdamar, K. (2004). Paket Programlar ile İstatistiksel Veri Analizi [Statistical Data Analysis with Package Programs]. Kaan Kitabevi.

Paker Kahvecioğlu, N. (2007). Architectural design studio organization and creativity, ITU A|Z, 4(2), 6-26.

Reffat, R. (2007). Revitalizing architectural design studio teaching using ICT: Reflections on practical implementations, International Journal of Education and Development Using Information and Communication Technology (IJEDICT), 3(1), 39-53.

Uluoğlu, B. (2000). Design knowledge communicated in studio critiques, Design Studies, 21(1), 33–58.

Ulusoy, Z. (1999). To design versus to understand design: The role of graphic representations and verbal expressions, Design Studies, 20(2), 123–130.

Youssef, K. A. (2014). Horizontal design studio versus vertical design studio: A tale of two architecture schools, 7th International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation, 17-19 November 2014, pp. 5024-5034, Seville, Spain.

Wu, Y., Lin, Y.-A., Wen, M.-H., Perng, Y.-H. & Hsu, I.- T. (2016). Design, analysis and user acceptance of architectural design education in learning system based on knowledge management theory, Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 12(11), 2835-2849.

Verma, N. (1997). Design theory education: How useful is previous design experience?, Design Studies, 18(1), 89-99.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15320/ICONARP.2020.134
Fatal error: Call to undefined function curl_init() in /var/www/html/iconarp/lib/pkp/classes/webservice/WebService.inc.php on line 198