TASARIM EĞİTİMİNDE YERİNDE ÖĞRENME DENEYİMİ: İŞBİRLİKÇİ BİR ÖRNEK OLARAK ENDÜSTRİ ODAKLI TASARIM STÜDYOSU

Abstract

Endüstriyel tasarım eğitimi ve sanayi arasında ki işbirlikçi proje uygulamaları öğrenciler için gerçekçi deneyimler kazanması için çok katmanlı bir zemin hazırlar. Ancak Türkiye'de tasarım eğitimi ile sanayi arasında hala önemli bir mesafe vardır. Bu nedenle tasarım eğitiminin üniversite sınırları dışına çıkması için yeni fırsatlara ve uygulamalara ihitiyacı vardır. Bu çalışma, tasarım eğitiminde alternatif bir uygulama olarak sanayicinin evine misafir olma projesidir. Üniversite sınırları dışında bir fabrikada açılan tasarım stüdyosu dersinde, yerinde öğrenme yaklaşımı ile, tasarım eğitiminde öğrencilerin gerçek bir üretim deneyimiyle akademik bilgiyi birleştirilmesi hedeflenmiştir. Bu kapsamda çalışmanın amacı; işbirlikçi bir yaklaşım ile yapılandırılan endüstri odaklı tasarım stüdyosu dersinin öğrencilerin öğrenme motivasyonu ve katkısı üzerindeki etkisini değerlendirmektir. Nitel araştırma yöntemi kapsamında durum çalışması paradigmasına göre yapılandırılan çalışmada araştırma bulgularının önemi, tasarım stüdyosu dersinde “yerinde öğrenme” sürecine yeni bir bakış açısı getirebilmesi ve üniversite-sanayi işbirliğinde yeni bir uygulama alanı oluşturabilmesine dayanmaktadır.

Keywords

• Tasarım Stüdyosu
• Tasarım Eğitimi
• Yerinde Öğrenme
• İşbirlikçi Yaklaşım

ON-SITE LEARNING EXPERIENCE IN DESIGN EDUCATION: INDUSTRY-FOCUSED DESIGN STUDIO AS A COLLABORATIVE MODEL

Abstract

Collaborative project practices between industrial design education and industry provide a multi-layered basis for students to gain realistic experiences. However, there is still a significant gap between design education and industry in Turkey. For this reason, design education needs new opportunities and applications to be extended beyond university boundaries. This study presents a project of being a guest in the manufacturer’s house as an alternative practice in design education. In this project, a design studio course is conducted in a factory setting outside the university, combining academic knowledge with real-world production experience for students in design education, with an on-site learning approach. In this context, the aim of the study is to evaluate the impact of an industry-focused design studio course, structured through a collaborative approach, on students' learning motivation and contribution. The importance of the research findings in the study, which was structured as a case study within the scope of the qualitative research method, is based on its ability to bring a new perspective to the "on-site learning" process in the design studio course and to create a new application field within the context of university-industry collaboration.

Keywords

• Design Studio
• Design Education
• On-Site Learning
• Collaborative Approach

References

1. Arsham, H. (2002). Impact of the Internet on learning and teaching. USDLA Journal, 16(3). Retrieved July 7, 2006, from http://www.usdla.org/html/journal/MAR02_Issue/article01.html
2. Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(4), 369-398. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1991.9653139
3. Buchanan, R. (1998). Education and professional design in practice. Design Issues, 14(2), 36-66.
4. Buchanan, R. (2004). Human-centered design: Changing perspectives on design education in the east and west. Design Issues, 20(1), 30-39.
5. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Sage.
6. Dale, E. (1969). Audiovisual methods in teaching (3rd ed.). Dryden Press.
7. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education (1st ed.). Simon & Schuster.
8. Dewey, J. (1980). Art as experience. Perigee Books.

9. Dura, C. (1994). Üniversite-sanayi iş birliği üzerine bir deneme. Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi, 49(3-4), 101-117.
10. Dutton, A. T. (1987). Design and studio pedagogy. Journal of Architectural Education (1984-), 41(1), 16-25.
11. Findelli, A. (2001). Rethinking design education for the 21st Century: Theoretical, methodological, and ethical discussion. Design Issues, 17(1), 5-17. https://doi.org/10.1162/07479360152103796
12. Friedman, K. (2003). Theory construction in design research: criteria: approaches, and methods. Design Studies, 24(6), 507-522. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(03)00039-5
13. Friedman, K. (2012). Models of design: Envisioning a future design education. Visible Language, 46(1/2), 132. Friedman, K. (2019). Design education today: Challenges, opportunities, failures. Chatterjee Global Lecture Series. https://www.academia.edu/40519668-http://tongji.academia.edu/KenFriedman
14. Green, L. N., & Bonollo, E. (2003). Studio-based teaching: History and advantages in the teaching of design. World Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education, 2 (2), 269-272.
15. Karasar, N. (2015). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi (2nd ed.). Nobel Publications.
16. Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development . Prentice-Hall.
17. Kolko, J. (2005). New techniques in industrial design education. In 6th International Conference of the European Academy of Design Proceedings. http://www.jonkolko.com/writingNewTechniques.php
18. Lackney, J. A. (1999). A history of the studio-based learning model. Retrieved on March 8, 2012, from https://www.google.com.tr/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=i2InVpGwFq6z8wfH6J IDQ&gws_rd=ssl#q=a+history+of+the+studio-based+learning+model 1 Leutenecker-Twelsiek, B., Ferchow, J., Klahn, C., & Meboldt, M. (2018). The experience transfer model for new technologies—Application on design for additive manufacturing. Industrializing Additive Manufacturing. Proceedings of Additive Manufacturing in Products and Applications - AMPA 2017, 337-346. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361892337_Transferring_Experience_in_Industrial_Design_Studio_Education
19. Meyer, M. W., & Norman, D. (2020). Changing design education for the 21st century. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 6(1), 13-49.
20. Norman, D. (2010). Why design education must change. Core77. https://www.core77.com/posts/17993/why design-education-must-change-17993
21. Perkmann, M., et al. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations. Research Policy, 42(2), 423-442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.09.007
22. Papanek, V. J. (1984). Design for the real world: Human ecology and social change (Rev. ed.). Van Nostrand Reinhold Co.
23. Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. Jossey-Bass.
24. Schön, D. A. (1992). Designing as reflective conversation with the materials of a design situation. Knowledge- Based Systems, 5(1), 3-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/0950-7051(92)90020-G
25. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Sage Publications.
26. Taylor, A. (2009). Linking architecture and education: Sustainable design of learning environments . University of New Mexico Press.
27. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2018). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (11th ed.). Seçkin Akdemik ve Mesleki Yayınlar.
28. Yocom, K., Proksch, G., Born, B., & Tyman, S. K. (2012). The built environments laboratory: An interdisciplinary framework for studio education in the planning and design disciplines. Journal for Education in the Built Environment, 7(2), 8-25. https://doi.org/10.11120/jebe.2012.07020008