DESIGN STUDIO STRATEGIES FOR STIMULATING CREATIVITY

Yıl 2023, Cilt: 13 Sayı: 2, 561 - 578, 12.12.2023

Kamile Öztürk Kösenciğ Mehtap Özbayraktar

https://doi.org/10.20488/sanattasarim.1403872

Öz

This study aims to contribute to architecture design pedagogy and exploratory learning environments in
design studios through cross-case analysis. It involves contextual sampling and collecting and analysing
information from multiple sources about design studio strategies for stimulating creativity. Therefore, this study
investigates the five leading creativity-based teaching strategies (i.e., speculative thinking, multispeculative
thinking, material thinking, metaphorical thinking and analogical thinking as a teaching strategy) and
identifies the main concepts and their impacts on the design process cognitively. The methodology of the
study is to explore design studio practices by conducting document reviews about instructors and interviews
with prominent international practitioners to collect in-depth information about their strategies. The paper
identifies different stimulating concepts and demonstrates how an instructor cognitively influences the
cyclical design process. According to the results deconstructing the iterative problem and solution process is
typical for all these strategies. However, these strategies are effective in different phases of the process. They
can affect problem identification at the beginning, redefining the design problem in the middle of the design
process or possible solutions.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Analogy, Architecture, Creativity, Metaphor, Speculation.

YARATICILIĞI TETİKLEYEN TASARIM STÜDYOSU STRATEJİLERİ

Öz

Bu çalışma, karşılaştırmalı vaka analizi yoluyla mimarlık pedagojisine ve tasarım stüdyolarında keşfedici
öğrenme ortamlarına katkıda bulunmayı amaçlamaktadır. Araştırma, yaratıcılığı teşvik etmek için kullanılan
tasarım stüdyosu stratejileri hakkında örnek vaka çalışmasını içermektedir. Bu amaçla çalışmada önde gelen
yaratıcılığa dayalı yürütücü stratejileri; spekülatif, çoklu spekülatif, malzeme odaklı, metaforik ve analojik
yürütücü stratejisi olarak sınıflandırılmış ve analiz edilmiştir. Bu stratejilerin temel konseptleri ve bunların
yaratıcılık ve tasarım bilişi açısından etkileri tespit edilmiştir. Metodolojik olarak, literatür araştırması
yoluyla yaratıcılığı tetikleyen farklı kavramlar tanımlanmış, ilgili stratejiler belirlenmiş ve bunu uygulayan
yürütücüler tespit edilmiştir. Daha sonra bu yürütücülerin yaklaşımları yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler
ve basılı kaynaklara dayanarak analiz edilmiş ve buna göre her bir yürütücünün döngüsel tasarım sürecini
bilişsel açıdan nasıl değiştirdiği irdelenmiştir. Sonuçlara göre döngüsel problem tanımlama ve çözüm üretme
sürecini dönüştürmesi bakımından bu stratejiler benzerdir. Ancak, bu stratejiler sürecin farklı aşamalarında
etkilidir. Bazıları başlangıçta ve sürecin ortasında problemin tanımlamasını etkilerken bazıları da olası
çözümlere etki etmektedirler.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Analoji, Mimarlık, Yaratıcılık, Metafor, Spekülasyon

Kaynakça

• Aydınlı, S., and Kürtüncü, B. (2018). Paradigm shift in studio culture. A/Z ITU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 15(3),91–108. https://doi.org/10.5505/itujfa.2018.20053
• Aydınlı, S., ve Kürtüncü, B. (2014). Paralaks oda. İstanbul: Cenkler Matbaacılık.
• Bocca, D. (2020). Interviewed by Authors-8 July.
• Casakin, H. (2011). Metaphorical reasoning and design expertise: A perspective for design education. Journal of Learning Design,4(2). https://doi.org/10.5204/jld.v4i2.73
• Casakin, H. (2012). Visual Analogy as a Cognitive Stimulator for Problem Solving and Idea Generation in Design. S. Helie (Ed.), The Psychology of Problem Solving: An Interdisciplinary Approach (1st ed., pp. 1–28). Nova Science.
• Casakin, H., and Goldschmidt, G. (1999). Expertise and the use of visual analogy: implications for design education. Design Studies, 20(2), 153–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0142-694x(98)00032-5
• Clinton, G., and Hokanson, B. (2012). Creativity in the training and practice of instructional designers : the Design / Creativity Loops model. Education Tech Research Dev, 60, 111–130. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-011-9216-3
• Donaldson, J. P. (2016). Alignment of creativity tools and techniques with theory andresearch. In F. Reisman (Ed.), Creativity in arts, science and technology (pp. 260-279). London: KIE Conference Publications.
• Dong, F., Sterling, S., Li, Y., and Li, X. (2021). Design for the Speculative Future as a Knowledge Source. Cross-Cultural Design. Experience and Product Design Across Cultures. HCII 2021. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 12771. Springer, Cham. Rau, PL.P. (eds)
• Dorst, K., and Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design process: Co-evolution of problem-solution. Design Studies, 22(5), 425–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(01)00009-6
• Fricker, P., Kotnik, T., and Piskorec, L. (2019). Structuralism: Patterns of interaction computational design thinking across scales. Journal of Digital Landscape Architecture, 4, 239–247. https://doi.org/10.14627/537663026
• Goldschmidt, G., and Sever, A. L. (2011). Inspiring design ideas with texts. Design Studies, 32(2), 139–155. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.destud.2010.09.006
• Guilford, Paul, J. (1968). Intelligence, creativity and their educational implications. San Diego, CA: Robert R. Knapp.
• Hey, J., Linsey, J., Agogino, A. M., and Wood, K. L. (2008). Analogies and metaphors in creative design. International Journal of Engineering Education, 24(2), 283–294.
• Horden, R. (2008). Micro Architecture : Lightweight , mobile , ecological buildings for the future. London: Thames & Hudson.
• Vermunt, J., & Verschaffel, L. (2000). Process-oriented teaching. In New learning (pp. 209-225). Springer, Dordrecht.
• Jordanous, A. (2012). A Standardised procedure for evaluating creative systems: Computational creativity evaluation based on what it is to be creative. Cognitive Computation, 4(3), 246–279. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12559-012-9156-1
• Kudless, A. (2016). Digital design exercises .J. Johnson and J. Vermillion (Eds). New York, London: Routledge.
• Ledewitz, S. (1985). Models of design in studio teaching. Journal of Architectural Education, 38(2), 2–8.
• Maslow, A. H. (1958). Emotional blocks to creativity. Journal of Individual Psychology, 13(1).
• Moser, K. S. (2000). Metaphor Analysis in Psychology — Method , theory , and fields of application. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(2), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-1.2.1090
• Mott, J. A. (1973). Creativity and imagination (A Creative Understanding Book). Mankato: Creative Education, inc.
• O’Brien, W. (2020). Interviewed by Authors-17 September.
• Oxman, Rivka, and Oxman, R. (2010). The New Structralism Design, Engineering and Architectural Technologies. Architectural Design, 206, 15–23. https://doi.org/10.2307/2075548
• Oxman, R. (2001). The mind in design: a conceptual framework for cognition in design education. In Design knowing and learning: Cognition in design education (pp. 269-295). Elsevier Science.
• Pope, R. (2005). Creativity: Theory, history, practice. London: Routledge.
• Richards, K. M. (2008). Derrida Reframed- Interpreting key thinkers for the arts . Unided Kingdom: Bloomsbury Publishing, I.B.Tauris.
• Salama, A. M. (2005). A Process oriented design pedagogy: KFUPM Sophomore Studio. CEBE Transactions, 2(2), 16–31. https://doi.org/10.11120/tran.2005.02020016
• Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco, London: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
• Smithson, A. (1974). Mat system. Architectural Design, 573–590. https://bibliodarq.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/smithson-a-howto-recognise-and-read-mat-building.pdf (Retrieval date:20.07.2022)
• Stein, M. I. (1953). Creativity and culture. The Journal of Psychology, 36, 311–322.
• Ward, T. B., Finke, R. A., and Smith, S. M. (1995). Creativity and the Mind: Discovering the genius within . New Yok: Plenum Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-3330-0
• Yürekli, F. ve Falay, I. M. (2006). Karşı Deneyim Aykırı Eğitim. İstanbul: YEM (Yapı Endüstri Merkezi) Yayınları.
• Zhu, Y. (2020). Comparing the effects of different types of cultural inspiration on design creativity. Design Journal, 23(6), 919–930. https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2020.1825173