The Effect of Studios on Learning in Design Education

Tuğba Düzenli, Elif Merve Alpak, Abdullah Çiğdem, Emine Tarakçı Eren

Özet


The present study that aimed to determine the effects of the project classes conducted in the design studio on students was scrutinized specifically on the studio work conducted within the context of Environmental Design Project Course studio practice in Karadeniz Technical University Landscape Architecture Department. The study was a studio practice. In the first phase of the study, the content and practice of the studio course was examined. In the next phase, a survey was conducted with 174 students to investigate the effects of the fact that the courses were conducted in the studio environment on design students. The survey aimed to inquire the effects of the studio on the students’ creativity, development and learning of design skills. The satisfaction of the students in this course and their views about the use of the process in their future professional life was studied. Survey questions were asked to freshmen, sophomore, junior and senior students and the differences between these classes were determined. The questions were assessed using a 5-point Likert attitude scale. Conducted statistical analyses (SPSS 23.0) demonstrated that students considered the studios as environments that improve their creativity the most, students at all levels were satisfied with the studios, but that their satisfaction increased with their seniority, and they wanted to utilize this process in their professional lives and this desire was most prevalent among senior students. Correlation analysis findings demonstrated that satisfaction with the process was mostly related to the learning process. The present study findings demonstrated that design studios were instruction environments that provide students with design skills, improve their creativity and provide them practice opportunities. Study findings also revealed that the students were satisfied with design courses instructed in the studio and desired to experience the same process in their professional lives as well.


Anahtar Kelimeler


Design education, Design studios, Landscape architecture, Learning.

Tam Metin:

PDF (English)

Referanslar


Alangoya, K. A. (2015). Tasarımcı düşünce geleneğinin maceracı yapısı ve kentsel tasarım eğitimine katkısı üzerine deneysel bir kentsel tasarım stüdyosu: “İz üstünde taksim meydanı”. METU Journal of faculty of architecture, 1, (32:1) 65-89.

Alberti, L. B. (1988). On the art of building in ten books. Mit Press.

Anonim, (1993). Webster’s Third New International Dictionary. Eds. Philip Babcock Gove, Könemann Verlagsgesellschaft, Germany.

Ayıran, N. (1995). Mimari tasarım stüdyo üzerine bazı notlar. Yapı Dergisi, 160: 54-60.

Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32(3): 347-365.

Delahaye, B. L. (2005). Human resource development: Adult learning and knowledge management. Brisbane, Australia: John Wiley and Sons Australia.

Dewey, J. (1987). Art as Experience. The Later Works of John Dewey, 1925- 1953. Volume 10: 1934, Edited by Jo Ann Boydston Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press.

Dikmen, Ç. B. (2010). Mimarlık eğitiminde stüdyo çalınmalarının önemi: temel eğitim stüdyoları. Journal of New World Sciences 6: 4, 1509-1520.

Düzenli, T.; Alpak, E. M. & Tarakci Eren, E. (2017). The Significance of Public Space Art in Landscape Architecture. Yıldız Journal of Art and Design. 4:143-158.

Düzenli, T.; Alpak, E. M. & Tarakci Eren, E. (2017a). Artıstıc Plant Representatıon Technıques In Landscape Archıtecture. Nwsa Fine Arts. 12:177-184.

Düzenli, T.; Yılmaz, S. & Alpak, E. M. (2017). The Effects of Model Making on Design and Learning in Landscape Architecture Education, Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, .70, 121-134

Eren, E. T. & Var, M. (2017). Education Process and Development of Environmental Design Project. International Journal of Educational Sciences, 19, 2-3, 144-151, DOI: 10.1080/09751122.2017.1393958

Erzen, J. N. (1976). Eğitimin estetik süreç olarak yorumu ve mimarlık eğitimi. ODTÜ Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi 2: 2, 175-185.

Gasset, J. O. (1998). Mission of University (Foundations of Higher Education), Taylor & Francis.

Gasset, J. O. (1998). Üniversitenin Misyonu, Yapı Kredi Kültür ve Sanat Yayıncılık. İstanbul.

Gazvoda, D. (2002). Characteristics of modern landscape architecture and its education. Landscape and Urban Planning 60: (2002) 117–133.

Gür, Ş. Ö. (2003). Dosya: Mimarlık eğitiminde tasarım stüdyolarına farklı yaklaşımlar, Stüdyo hocalığının 14 altın kuralı. Ege Mimarlık 47:/3, 41-42.

Hetland, L. (2013). Connecting Creativity to Understanding. Educational Liedership.

Hetland, L.; Winner, E.; Veenema, S. & Sheridan, K. M. (2007). Studio Thinking. The Real Benefits of Visual Arts Education. Teachers College Press. New York.

Ketizmen, G. (2002). Mimari tasarım stüdyosunun biçimlenmesinde yöntemsel ve mekânsal etkilerin incelenmesi: anadolu üniversitesi mimarlık bölümü mimari tasarım stüdyosu örneği, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Anadolu Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Mimarlık Anabilim Dalı, Eskişehir.

Kuban, D. (1984). Mimarlık Kavramları Mimarlığın Kuramsal Sözlüğüne Giriş. Çevre Yayınları, lstanbul.

Lökçe, S. (2002). Mimarlık eğitim programları: Mimari tasarım ve teknoloji ile bütünleşme. Gazi Üniversitesi Mühendislik Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi 17: 3, 1-16.

Marušic, I. (2002). Some observations regarding the education of landscape architects for the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning 60 (2002): 95–103.

Nicol, D. & Pilling S. (2000). Changing Architectural Education. London: Taylor and Francis Publications

O’Neill, S. & Shallcross D. (1994). Sensational thinking: a teaching/ learning model for creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior 28:2, 75-88.

Öztür, Ö. B. (2010). Günümüz tasarım eğitiminde yöntem-üslup çekişmesi ve sonuçları üzerine bir deneme. International Conference on New Trends in Education and Their Implications. 11-13 November, Antalya-Turkey.

Öztürk, Ö. B. & Arayıcı, O. (2011). Tasarım eğitimi kapsamında bir yöntem önerisi: İmgesel Aritmetik. 2nd International Conference on New Trends in Education and Their Implications 27-29 April, Antalya-Turkey.

Öztürk, Ö. B. (2007). İmgesel aritmetik yöntemiyle mekân tasarımı ve tasarım örneği. Sanatta Yeterlik tezi M.S.G.S.Ü. Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü.

Pallasmaa, J. (1996). The eyes of the skin: Architecture and the senses. Artmedia Press.

Rıttel, H. W. J. & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences, 4: 155-169.

Rodiek, J. E. & Steiner, F. R. (1998). Special Issue: Landscape Architecture Research and Education.Landscape and Urban Planning (42): 73-74.

Schon D. (1983). The Reflective Practititoner. Basic Books, Inc. NY, 21.

Schön, D. (1985). The design studio. RIBA Publications Limited, London.

Smith, S. M.; Ward, T. B. & Finke R. A. (1995). Creative Cognition Approach. MIT Press, Cambridge, London.

Stevens, G. (1998). Struggle in the studio: a Bourdivin look at architectural pedagogy. Journal of Architectural Education, 49: 105-122.

Teymur, N. (1997). Bir Mimarlık Eğitimi Kuramına Doğru, Mimarlık Eğitimi. TMMOB Ankara Şubesi Yayınları, Ankara.

Uluoğlu, B. (1990). Mimari tasarım eğitimi: Tasarım bilgisi bağlamında stüdyo eleştirileri, Doktora Tezi, İTÜ, İstanbul.

Ulusoy, Z. (1995). Mimarlık eğitiminde farklı alanlar ve eğitime yansıması, Mimarlık ve Eğitimi Forum 1: Nasıl Bir Gelecek? Bildiriler, İTÜ, 222–227, İstanbul.

Yilmaz, S.; Mumcu S. & Düzenli, T. (2017). Examining the Academic Success of the Students in Drawing Techniques Course: The Case of Freshmen in Landscape Architecture. European Online Journal of Natural and Social Sciences. 6(3): 406-416.

Yılmaz, S.; Mumcu, S.; Düzenli, T. & Özbilen A. (2016). Analyzing the Unity Concept in Design on Student Works: A Case Study of Architectural Design Course. Inonu University Journal of Art and Design, 6:1-12.

Yilmaz, S.; Özgüner, H. & Mumcu, S. (2018). An Aesthetic Approach to Planting Design in Urban Parks and Greenspaces. Landscape Research. 1-19.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7596/taksad.v7i2.1392

Refback'ler

  • Şu halde refbacks yoktur.




Telif Hakkı (c) 2018 Journal of History Culture and Art Research

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.