Mimetic Teaching Strategy in Design Education: Relationship Between Students' Learning Style and Creativity

Abstract

This research focuses on the relationship between students' learning style change and the components of creativity in a design studio environment where mimetic teaching strategy is adopted. It is assumed in the study that the change in learning style is associated with the level of creativity in the design process and product. The theoretical framework of this study, which focuses on the learning strategy of a total of 13 students taking the second-year architectural design project course in the architecture department throughout the semester, is formed by Rhodes' 4Ps (Person, Press, Process, and Product). According to this, the skill of reasoning (person) by Sloman and Pahl & Beitz (associative-variant / hybrid-adaptable / metaphorical-original); resource utilization in the design process (press) by Casakin, Akalın, and Özkan & Akalın (within domains –hybrid- between domains); design process (process) by Rittel (linear / non-linear) and the created product (product) by Gentner & Markman and Welling (application-analogy-combination-abstraction) were analyzed based on the theoretical framework. Analysis findings showed that students who experienced different learning styles at the beginning and end of the semester were in a constant search by adopting a non-linear design process, and these students reached the original design by using metaphorical reasoning. Students using associative reasoning with a linear process struggled to abstractly analyze ill defined design problems, which led them to generate variants of solved design problems. One way to break this situation is to guide learners to find examples that will lead them to metaphorical reasoning, activate their relationship with place context, and lead them to metaphorical reasoning. Since creativity is closely related to the ability to restructure and reinterpret, the metaphorical reasoning strategy in developing solutions with mimetic approaches should be encouraged as a tool that shows students different thinking alternatives, and original or adaptable designs should be encouraged.

Keywords

• Architectural Design Studio
• Creativity
• Learning Style
• Mimetic Approach
• Metaphorical Reasoning

References

1. Acar, A., Acar, A. Ş. S., & Ünver, E. (2021). Mimarlık Bölümü Birinci Sınıf Öğrencilerinin Kendi Problem Çözme Becerilerine Dair Algılarının Dikkat ve Görsel-Mekânsal Becerileriyle İlişkisi Üzerine Bir Araştırma. Megaron, 16(2), 212-222. https://doi.org/10.14744/megaron.2021.98623
2. Ackermann, E. (2001). Piaget’s constructivism, Papert’s constructionism: What’s the difference. Future of learning group publication, 5(3), 438-449. https://learning.media.mit.edu/content/publications/EA.Piaget%20_%20Papert.pdf
3. Akalın, A. (2018, October 4-6). Architectural Design Education as a Context Related Mimetic Discipline. [Oral presentation]. In Dicle University 1st International architecture symposium: From environment to space, Diyarbakır, Turkey.
4. Akın, Ö. (2001). Variants in design cognition. Eastman, C., Newstetter, W., & McCracken, M. (Eds.). In Design knowing and learning: Cognition in design education (pp.105-124), Elsevier.
5. Akyıldız, E. C. (2020). Bir Öğrenme Ortamı Olarak Tasarım Stüdyosu: Maltepe Üniversitesi Tasarım Stüdyosu 1 Deneyimi. The Turkish Online Journal of Design Art and Communication, 10(4), 389-407. https://doi.org/10.7456/11004100/005
6. Albrechts, L. (2005). Creativity as a drive for change. Planning theory, 4(3), 247-269. https://doi.org/10.1177/14730952050584
7. Aşkar, P., & Akkoyunlu, B. (1993). Kolb Öğrenme Stili Envanteri. Eğitim ve Bilim, 17(87), 37-48. https://egitimvebilim.ted.org.tr/index.php/EB/article/view/5854/1987
8. Ayalp, G. G., Şenyiğit, Ö., & Erman, O. (2015). Exploring the learning style characteristics of Turkish freshman architecture students with the evidence of learning style inventory. Balıkesir Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, 17(2), 68-82. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/220313

9. Aydınlı, S. & Avcı, O. (2010). Relational Thinking that Enhance the Critical Thinking: A design studio case based on the discovery of knowledge. Spiridonidis, C. & M. Voyatzaki (Ed.). In educating architects towards innovative architectural education (pp. 89-101), ENHSA Publication.
10. Ayıran, N. (2005). From systematic methods to the metaphorical approach in the design studio. A|Z ITU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 2(01-02), 21-51.https://www.az.itu.edu.tr/index.php/jfa/article/download/544/494
11. Potur, A. & Barkul, Ö. (2010, June 23-25). Stüdyo: Tasarım Eğitiminin Kalbi / Studio: The Heart of Design Education, [Oral presentation]. International Conference on New Horizons in Education, Famagusta, North Cyprus.
12. Ball, L. J., & Christensen, B. T. (2009). Analogical reasoning and mental simulation in design: two strategies linked to uncertainty resolution. Design Studies, 30(2), 169-186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2008.12.005
13. Bender, D. M. (2004, March 25). Computer attitudes and learning styles of interior design students. [Oral presentation]. In Conference Chair Wendy Beckwith La Roche College Abstract Review Marie Gentry Coordinators Nancy G. Miller University of Arkansas, USA.
14. Bottelli, L. Z. (2010). Identity and Time Tools for innovative architecture. Spiridonidis, C. & M. Voyatzaki (Ed.). Educating Architects towards Innovative Architecture(pp. 453-461). EAAE Transactions on Architectural Education.
15. Bridges, A. H. (1986). Any progress in systematic design? A. Pipes (Ed.). In Computer-Aided Architectural Design Futures (pp. 5-15). Butterworth-Heinemann.
16. Brooker, G., & Stone, S. (2012). İç mimarlıkta bağlam+çevre. (C. Uçar, Trans.). Literatür Yayınları (Original work published 2008).
17. Candy, L., & Edmonds, E. A. (1997). Supporting the creative user a criteria-based approach to interaction design. Design Studies, 18(2), 185-194. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(97)85460-9
18. Carmel Gilfilen, C. (2012). Uncovering pathways of design thinking and learning: Inquiry on intellectual development and learning style preferences. Journal of interior design, 37(3), 47-68. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-1668.2012.010
19. Casakin, H. (2004a, September 2-3). Metaphors in the design studio: Implications for education. [Oral presentation]. The 7th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education, Delft, Netherlands.
20. Casakin, H. (2004b). Visual analogy as a cognitive strategy in the design process: Expert versus novice performance. Journal of Design Research, 4(2), 197-217. https://doi.org/10.1504/JDR.2004.009846
21. Casakin, H. P. (2006). Assessing the use of metaphors in the design process. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 33(2), 253-268. https://doi.org/10.1068/b3196
22. Casakin, H. P. (2007). Factors of metaphors in design problem-solving: Implications for design creativity. International Journal of Design, 1(2), 21-33. https://www.ijdesign.org/index.php/IJDesign/article/view/53/27
23. Casakin, H. (2011). Metaphorical Reasoning and Design Expertise: A Perspective for Design Education. Journal of learning design, 4(2), 29-38. https://doi.org/10.5204/jld.v4i2.73
24. Casakin, H. (2012). An empirical assessment of metaphor use in the design studio: analysis, reflection and restructuring of architectural design. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 22(3), 329-344. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-010-9149-x
25. 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
26. Casakin, H. P., and Goldschmidt, G. (2000). Reasoning by visual analogy in design problemsolving: the role of guidance. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 27(1), 105-119. https://doi.org/10.1068/b2565
27. Casakin, H., and Kreitler, S. (2011). The cognitive profile of creativity in design. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 6(3), 159-168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2011.06.001
28. Casakin, H., and Miller, K. (2007, July 13-14). An investigation of metaphor use and learning style in design problem solving. [Oral presentation]. The 9th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education, University of Northumbria, Newcastle, UK.
29. Castillo, J. V. and Mora, M. (2010). Architecture without Condition. Spiridonidis, C. & M. Voyatzaki (Ed.). Educating Architects towards Innovative Architecture(pp. 403-411). EAAE Transactions on Architectural Education.
30. Ceylan, S., and Soygenis, S. (2022). Improving Architecture Students’ Design Skills A Studio Experience. International Journal of Art & Design Education. 41(2), 320-340. https://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12401
31. Chand, I., and Runco, M. (1992). Problem finding skills as components in the creative process. Personality and Individual Differences, 14(1), 155–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(93)90185-6
32. Choi, H. H., Kim, M. J., and Cho, M. E. (2013). A critical review of research on design education focusing on creativity in architectural design. Archives of Design Research, 26(3), 119-138. https://doi.org/10.15187/adr.2013.08.26.3.119
33. Choi, H. H., and Kim, M. J. (2016). The Potential Of Reasoning Methods As A Teaching Strategy Supporting Students’creative Thinking In Architectural Design. ArchNet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research, 10(3), 6-20. https://doi.org/10.26687/archnet-ijar.v10i3.1048
34. Choi, H. H., and Kim, M. J. (2017). The effects of analogical and metaphorical reasoning on design thinking. Thinking skills and Creativity, 23(1), 29-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2016.11.004
35. Christiaans, H., and Venselaar, K. (2005). Creativity in design engineering and the role of knowledge: Modelling the expert. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 15(3), 217-236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-004-1904-4
36. Coyne, R., Snodgrass, A., and Martin, D. (1994). Metaphors in the design studio. Journal of Architectural Education, 48(2), 113-125. https://doi.org/10.1080/10464883.1994.10734630
37. Deleuze, G. (2017). Fark ve tekrar. Norgunk Yayıncılık.
38. Demirbaş, O. O., and Demirkan, H. (2003). Focus on architectural design process through learningstyles. Design Studies, 24(5), 437-456. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(03)00013-9
39. Demirkan, H., and Demirbaş, Ö. O. (2008). Focus on the learning styles of freshman design students. Design studies, 29(3), 254-266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2008.01.002
40. Dinç Kalaycı, P. (2016). Etkileşimden Bütünleşmeye Bir Mimari Tasarım Stüdyosu Pratiğinin Anatomisi, Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
41. Dinç Kalaycı, P. (2018). From Fantasy to Reality, Reality to Fantasy… Design Studio as a Swinging Pendulum: Studio ThinkImagine, Architectural Episodes.
42. Dizdar, S. I. (2015). Architectural education, project design course and education process using examples. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 176(1), 276-283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.472
43. Dudek, S. Z., and Côté, R. (1994). Problem finding revisited. In M. A. Runco (Ed.), Problem finding, problem solving and creativity(pp. 130-150). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
44. Fotiou, T. and Karvountzi, K. (2010). Realities versus Concepts From design studios to design laboratories. Spiridonidis, C. & M. Voyatzaki (Ed.). Educating Architects towards Innovative Architecture (pp.233-245). EAAE Transactions on Architectural Education.
45. Frascara, J. (2020). Design education, training, and the broad picture: eight experts respond to a few questions. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 6(1), 106-117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2019.12.003
46. Friedman, K. (2002, April 10-12). Design curriculum challenges for today’s university. [Oral presentation]. In International Conference from CLTAD, London, United Kingdom.
47. Gänshirt, C. (2012). Tools for ideas. In Tools for Ideas. Birkhäuser Press.
48. Gero, J. S. (2000). Computational models of innovative and creative design processes. Technological forecasting and social change, 64(2-3), 183-196. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0040-1625(99)00105-5
49. Gero, J. S., and Kannengiesser, U. (2004). The situated function–behaviour–structure framework. Design studies, 25(4), 373-391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2003.10.010
50. Gentner, D., and Colhoun, J. (2010). Analogical processes in human thinking and learning. In B. M. Glatzeder, V. Goel, and A. von Müller (Eds.), Towards a Theory of Thinking: Building Blocks for a Conceptual Framework (pp. 35-48). Springer-Verlag.
51. Gentner, D. (1989). The mechanisms of analogical learning. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 199–241). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511529863.011.
52. Gentner, D., and Markman, A. B. (1997). Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American psychologist, 52(1), 45-56. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.1.45
53. Getzels, J. W. (1987). Problem finding and creative achievement. Gifted Students Institute Quarterly, 16(4), 235- 241. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199409553588
54. Goldschmidt, G., and Tatsa, D. (2005). How good are good ideas? Correlates of design creativity. Design studies, 26(6), 593-611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2005.02.004
55. González-Pérez, L. I., and Ramírez-Montoya, M. S. (2022). Components of Education 4.0 in 21st century skills frameworks: Systematic review. Sustainability, 14(3), 26-31. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031493
56. Green, L. N., and Bonollo, E. (2003). Studio-based teaching: history and advantages in the teaching of design. World Transactions on Eng. and Tech. Edu. 2(2), 269-272.
57. Gülbahar, Y. (2005). Öğrenme Stilleri ve Teknoloji. Eğitim ve Bilim, 30(138), 10-17. https://egitimvebilim.ted.org.tr/index.php/EB/article/view/4989
58. Gür, B. (2017). Praksis: Eylem olarak tasarım ve eğitimi. Mimari tasarım eğitimine çağdaş önermeler. YEM Yayınları.
59. Hançerlioğlu, O. (1979). Felsefe ansiklopedisi: kavramlar ve akımlar. Remzi Kitabevi.
60. Harrison, J., and Dalton, C. (2010). Educating Architects towards Innovative Architecture. Spiridonidis, C. & M. Voyatzaki (Ed.). Making the Familiar Strange: Learning innovation by example. (pp. 159-171). EAAE Transactions on Architectural education.
61. Higgins, M., and Morgan, J. (2000). The role of creativity in planning The’creative practitioner’. Planning Practice & Research, 15(1-2), 117-127. https://doi.org/10.1080/713691881
62. Howard, T. J., Culley, S. J., and Dekonınck, E. (2008). Describing the creative design process by the integration of engineering design and cognitive psychology literature. Design studies, 29(2), 160-180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2008.01.001
63. Khakzand, M. and Azimi, M. (2015). Metaphor: a creative aid in architectural design process. International Journal of Architectural Engineering & Urban Planning (IJAUP), 25(2), 67-75. https://doi.org/10.22068/ijaup.25.2.67
64. Kvan, T., and Jia, Y. (2005). Students’ learning styles and their correlation with performance in architectural design studio. Design Studies, 26(1), 19-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2004.06.004
65. Khorshidifard, S. (2011, April 20-23). A paradigm in architectural education: Kolb’s Model and learning styles in studio pedagogy. [Oral presentation]. In ARCC Conference Repository. Ryerson University, Toronto, Canadian.
66. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experiences as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall.
67. Kowaltowski, D. C., Bianchi, G., and De Paiva, V. T. (2010). Methods that may stimulate creativity and their use in architectural design education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 20(4), 453-476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-009-9102-z
68. Kuru Turaşlı, N. (2003). Bir ölçme değerlendirme yöntemi olarak” gözlem tekniği” ve okul öncesi eğitimde kullanılması. Maltepe Üniversitesi Fen Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 1(3), 63- 80.
69. Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh-the embodied mindand its challenge to Western Thought. Basic Books.
70. Lee, L. (2010). Educating Architects towards Innovative Architecture. Spiridonidis, C. & M. Voyatzaki (Ed.). Integrated Design Strategies for Innovation. (pp. 31-43). EAAE Transactions on Architectural education.
71. Maher, M. L., Poon, J., and Boulanger, S. (1996). Formalising design exploration as co-evolution. In Advances in formal design methods for CAD, Boston, MA.
72. Mcleod. S. (2024). Kolb’s Learning Styles And Experiential Learning Cycle. Retrieved February 2, 2024 from https://www.simplypsychology.org/learning-kolb.html
73. Milovanović, A., Kostić, M., Zorić, A., Đorđević, A., Pešić, M., Bugarski, J., & Josifovski, A. (2020). Transferring COVID-19 challenges into learning potentials: Online workshops in architectural education. Sustainability, 12(17), 8-21. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12177024
74. Morabito, G., Giuliani, F., Marrone, P., & Zacchei, V. (2010). Educating Architects towards Innovative Architecture. Spiridonidis, C. & M. Voyatzaki (Ed.). Design Training and Education using an Evolutionary Process Training experiences in technological design (pp. 439-453). EAAE Transactions on Architectural education.
75. Murphy, K. M., Ivarsson, J., & Lymer, G. (2012). Embodied reasoning in architectural critique. Design Studies, 33(6), 530-556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2012.06.005
76. Newland, P., Powell, J. A., & Creed, C. (1987). Understanding architectural designers’ selective information handling. Design Studies, 8(1), 2-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-694X(87)90026-3
77. Newton, C., and Pak, B. (2015). Virtuality and fostering critical design thinking: an exploration of the possibilities through critical theory, design practices and networked learning. In Critical Learning in Digital Networks, Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-13752-0_6
78. Nussbaumer, L. L., and Guerin, D. A. (2000). The relationship between learning styles and visualization skills among interior design students. Journal of Interior Design, 26(2), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-1668.2000.tb00355.x
79. Ohlsson, S. (1984). Restructuring revisited: I. Summary and critique of the gestalt theory of problem solving. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 25(1), 65–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.1984.tb01001.x
80. Onat, E. (2020). Mimarlığa yolculuk. Efil Yayınevi, 5. Yeniden Basım.
81. Özbudak Akça, B. and Aras Baylan, B. (2020). Assessment of conceptual efforts in architectural design education through studio-related experiences. Online Journal of Art and Design, 8(3), 59-74.
82. Özdemir, E. E. (2015). Mimari tasarım araçlarından perspektif çizebilme başarısının öğrenme stillerine etkisi: birinci sınıf mimarlık öğrencileri örneği. Artium, 3(2), 10-21. http://artium.hku.edu.tr/tr/pub/issue/2246/29610
83. Özdemir, E. E., and Akalın, A. (2022). The relationship between students› mimetic approaches and learning styles in architectural design education. Periodica Polytechnica Architecture, 53(2), 113-126. https://doi.org/10.3311/PPar.17812
84. Özgür, S. (2018). Mimarlıkta taklit olgusu için bir öneri: mem örüntüleri ve mimari emsal hikayesi kavramı. Megaron, 13(2), 192-200. https://doi: 10.5505/megaron.2018.69926
85. Özkan Yazgan, E., and Akalın, A. (2019a). The Comprehension of Place Awareness In A Historical Context: Metaphors In Architectural Design Education. METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 36(1), 183-202. http://dx.doi.org/10.4305/metu.jfa.2019.1.7
86. Özkan Yazgan, E., and Akalın, A. (2019b). Metaphorical reasoning and the design behavior of “prearchitects”. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29(5), 1193-1206. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10798-018-9485-9
87. Pahl, G., and Beitz, W. (1984). Engineering design, The design council. Springer Press.
88. Park, E. J., and Kim, M. J. (2021). Visual Communication for Students’ Creative Thinking in the Design Studio: Translating Filmic Spaces into Spatial Design. Buildings, 11(3), 91-109. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings11030091
89. Redström, J. (2020). Certain uncertainties and the design of design education. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 6(1), 83-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2020.02.001
90. Rhodes, M. J. (1961). An analysis of creativity. The Phi delta kappan, 42(7), 305-310.
91. Rittel, H. W. (1992). Planen, Entwerfen, Design: Ausgewählte Schriften zu Theorie und Methodik. Kohlhammer.
92. Ritter, J. (1981). Building design: information and aids. In Percey Thompson Partnerships Press.
93. Salama, A. M. (2005, January 29-31). Skill-based/knowledge-based architectural pedagogies: An argument for creating humane environments. [Oral presentation]. In 7th International Conference on Humane Habitat-ICHH. Rizvi College of Architecture, India.
94. Sarkar P, Chakrabarti A. (2008). Studying engineering design creativity- developing a common definition and associated measures, In, John Gero (Ed.) Studying Design Creativity, Springer Verlag.
95. Shixing, L. (2010). How far can we go from Precedents? Spiridonidis, C. & M. Voyatzaki (Ed.). Educating Architects towards Innovative Architecture (pp.253-261). EAAE Transactions on Architectural Education.
96. Schuldberg, D. (1999). Chaos theory and creativity. Mark A. Runco, Steven R. Pritzker (Eds.) Encyclopedia of creativity (pp. 259-273). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-375038-9.00037-6
97. Sloman, S. A. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119(1), 3-22. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.1.3
98. Snodgrass, A., and Coyne, R. (1992). Models, metaphors and the hermeneutics of designing. Design issues, 9(1), 56-74. https://doi.org/10.2307/1511599
99. Şentürer, A. (2001). Mimarlıkta Felsefe Nerede Duruyor?. Mimarlık ve Felsefe, YEM yayınevi.
100. Teal, R. (2010). Developing a (Non‐linear) Practice of Design Thinking. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 29(3), 294-302. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-8070.2010.01663.x
101. Tezel, E., and Casakin, H. (2010). Learning Styles And Students’ performance In Design Problem Solving. Archnet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research, 4(2/3), 262-272. https://doi.org/10.26687/archnet-ijar.v4i2/3.110
102. Tucker, R. (2007). Southern drift: The learning styles of first-and third-year students of the built environment. Architectural science review, 50(3), 246-255. https://doi.org/10.3763/asre.2007.5030
103. Ungers, O. M. (2020). Morphologie-Kent Metaforları. (C. Verbowski, Trans. ). Lemis Yayınevi (Original work published 1982).
104. Ürey, Z. Ç. U. (2021). Fostering Creative Cognition In Design Education: A Comparative Analysis of Algorithmic and Heuristic Educational Methods In Basic Design Education. METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 38(1), 53-80. http://dx.doi.org/10.4305/metu.jfa.2021.1.9
105. Vergopoulos, S. (2010). Educating Architects towards Innovative Architecture. Spiridonidis, C. & M. Voyatzaki (Ed.). Design Intentions and Innovation New teaching paradigms in the context of digital architectural design (pp. 411-423). EAAE Transactions on Architectural Education.
106. Vosnıadou, S. and A. Ortony (eds.) (1989) Similarity and Analogical Reasoning. Cambridge University Press.
107. Voyatzaki, M. and Spiridonidis, C. (2010). Educating architects towards innovative architecture. EAAE Transactions on Architectural Education.
108. Wallerstein, I. (2013). Bilginin Belirsizlikleri, (Berivan Alataş, Trans.). Sümer Yayıncılık.
109. Welling, H. (2007). Four mental operations in creative cognition: The importance of abstraction. Creativity Research Journal, 19(2-3), 163-177. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400410701397214
110. Wong, Y. L., and Siu, K. W. M. (2012). A model of creative design process for fostering creativity of students in design education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 22(4), 437-450. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-011-9162-8
111. Yüksel, F. C. G., Meral, S., & Kariptaş, F. S. (2021). Temadan Temsiliyete: Eleştirel Bir Stüdyo Deneyimi. Online Journal of Art and Design, 9(1), 229-244. http://www.adjournal.net/articles/91/9115.pdf