DIFFERENT EDUCATIONAL APPROACHES IN DESIGN STUDIO
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15320/ICONARP.2020.134Keywords:
Architectural design, design education, design studio, educational approachesAbstract
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.
Metrics
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.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
COPYRIGHT POLICY
1. The International Journal of Architecture and Planning (ICONARP) open access articles are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDeriatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). This license lets the author to share (copy and redistribute) his/her article in any medium or format.
2. ICONARP cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms. Under the following terms:
The author must give appropriate credit, provide a link to ICONARP, and indicate if changes were made on the article. The author may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the ICONARP endorses the author or his/her use.
The author may not use the article for commercial purposes.
If the author remix, transform, or build upon the article, s/he may not distribute the modified material.
The author may share print or electronic copies of the Article with colleagues.
The author may use the Article within his/her employer’s institution or company for educational or research purposes, including use in course packs.
3. The author authorizes the International Journal of Architecture and Planning (ICONARP) to exclusively publish online his/her Article, and to post his/her biography at the end of the article, and to use the articles.
4. The author agrees to the International Journal of Architecture and Planning (ICONARP) using any images from the Article on the cover of the Journal, and in any marketing material.
5. As the author, copyright in the Article remains in his/her name.
6. All papers should be submitted electronically. All submitted manuscripts must be original work that is not under submission at another journal or under consideration for publication in another form, such as a monograph or chapter of a book. Authors of submitted papers are obligated not to submit their paper for publication elsewhere until an editorial decision is rendered on their submission. Further, authors of accepted papers are prohibited from publishing the results in other publications that appear before the paper is published in the Journal.
ICONARP International Journal of Architecture and Planning is an OAJ supported by 