Mimari Tasarım Eğitiminde Karma Gerçekliği Keşfetmek: Sistematik İnceleme

Year 2024, , 176 - 188, 05.11.2024

Ayşegül Kıdık , Burak Asiliskender

https://doi.org/10.55755/DepArch.2024.33

Abstract

Bu sistematik literatür taraması, Karma Gerçeklik (KG) teknolojilerinin Mimari Tasarım Stüdyosu Eğitimi (MTSE) içindeki entegrasyonunu ve etkilerini araştırmaktadır. 2019'dan 2024'e kadar olan dönemi kapsayan bu inceleme, mevcut çalışmalar aracılığıyla KG'nin tasarım eğitimindeki güncel rolünü derlemektedir. Çalışmanın amacı, KG'in MTSE'ndeki olumlu ve olumsuz katkılarını değerlendirmek ve bu alandaki gelecekteki potansiyelini tartışmaktır. Makaleler, PRISMA (2020) kılavuzlarına (Page M.J.et al.,2021) göre seçilmiş ve gözden geçirilmiş, bulgular ScienceDirect, Web of Science ve Scopus veri tabanlarından analiz edilmiştir. İnceleme, KG'in MTSE'ndeki uygulamalarına odaklanan makaleleri belirlemiştir. İncelenen araştırmalardan elde edilen bulgular, KG teknolojilerinin, mimari tasarımların gerçek zamanlı görselleştirilmesi ve manipülasyonuna olanak tanıyan etkileşimli ve sürükleyici ortamlar sağlayarak deneyimsel öğrenmeyi önemli ölçüde artırdığını göstermektedir. Ancak, KG'in MTSE 'ne entegrasyonu, yüksek uygulama maliyetleri ve eğitmenler için özel eğitim gereksinimleri gibi zorluklarla karşı karşıyadır. Bununla birlikte, bu zorluklar aşıldığında, KG MTSE'ne alternatif bir gerçeklik sunarak dönüştürücü bir potansiyel sağlayabilir. Bu makale, KG teknolojilerini kullanarak MTSE'nde yenilikçi öğrenme ortamları geliştirmek isteyen eğitimcilere, müfredat geliştiricilere ve öğrencilere kapsamlı bir rehber sunmaktadır.

Keywords

Mimari Tasarım Stüdyosu Eğitimi, Mimarlık Eğitimi, Karma Gerçeklik (KG), Kaliteli Eğitim (SKA 4)

Exploring Mixed Reality in Architectural Design Education: A Systematic Review

Abstract

This systematic literature review explores the integration and impact of Mixed Reality (MR) technologies in Architectural Design Studio Education (ADSE). Covering the period from 2019 to 2024, this review consolidates the current role of MR in design education by analysing existing studies. The study aims to evaluate both the positive and negative contributions of MR in ADSE and discuss its future potential in this field. The articles were selected and reviewed according to PRISMA (2020) guidelines (Page M.J.et al.,2021), and findings were analysed from databases including ScienceDirect, Web of Science, and Scopus. The review identified articles focusing on the application of MR in ADSE. The research findings indicate that MR technologies significantly enhance experiential learning by providing interactive and immersive environments that allow real-time visualization and manipulation of architectural designs. However, integrating MR into ADSE faces challenges such as high implementation costs and the need for specialized training for instructors. Nevertheless, if these challenges are addressed, MR can offer an alternative reality to ADSE with transformative potential. This paper provides a comprehensive guide for educators, curriculum developers, and students interested in leveraging MR technologies to foster innovative learning environments in ADSE.

Keywords

Architectural Design Studio Education, Architectural Education, Mixed Reality (MR), Quality Education (SDG 4)

References

• Ali, A. A., Dafoulas, G. A., & Augusto, J. C. (2019). Collaborative educational environments incorporating mixed reality technologies: A systematic mapping study. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 12(3), 321-332. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2019.2926727
• Almufarreh, A. (2023). Exploring the potential of mixed reality in enhancing student learning experience and aca-demic performance: An empirical study. Systems, 11(6), 292. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems11060292
• Buyruk, Y., & Çağdaş, G. (2022). Interactive parametric design and robotic fabrication within mixed reality envi-ronment. Applied Sciences, 12(24), 12797. https://doi.org/10.3390/app122412797
• Ceylan, S., Şahin, P., Seçmen, S., Somer, M. E., & Süher, H. K. (2024). The contribution of digital tools to architec-tural design studio: A case study. Ain Shams Engineering Journal, in press. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2024.102795
• Cindioglu, H. C., Gursel Dino, I., & Surer, E. (2022). Proposing a novel mixed-reality framework for basic design and its hybrid evaluation using linkography and interviews. International Journal of Technology and Design Edu-cation, 32(5), 2775-2800. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-021-09707-0
• Dan, Y., Shen, Z., Xiao, J., Zhu, Y., Huang, L., & Zhou, J. (2021). HoloDesigner: A mixed reality tool for on-site de-sign. Automation in Construction, 129, 103808. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2021.103808
• Darwish, M., Kamel, S., & Assem, A. (2023). A theoretical model of using extended reality in architecture design education. Engineering Research Journal (Shoubra), 52(1), 36-45. https://doi.org/10.21608/erjsh.2022.168677.1099
• Darwish, M., Kamel, S., & Assem, A. (2023). Extended reality for enhancing spatial ability in architecture design education. Ain Shams Engineering Journal, 14(6), 102104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2022.102104
• Gownder, J. P., Voce, C., Mai, M., & Lynch, D. (2016, May 10). Breakout vendors: Virtual and augmented reality. Forrester. https://www.forrester.com/report/Breakout+Vendors+Virtual+And+Augmented+Reality/-/E-RES134187/.
• Kharvari, F., & Kaiser, L. E. (2022). Impact of extended reality on architectural education and the design process. Automation in Construction, 141, 104393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2022.104393
• Milgram, P., & Kishino, F. (1994). A taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays. IEICE Transactions on Information and Systems, 77(12), 1321-1329.
• Milman, N. B. (2018). Defining and conceptualizing mixed, augmented, and virtual reality. Distance Learning, 15(2), 55-64.
• Parveau, M., & Adda, M. (2018). 3iVClass: A new classification method for Virtual, Augmented and Mixed Reali-ties. Procedia Computer Science, 141, 263–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2018.10.180
• Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., McGuinness, L. A., Stewart, L. A., Thomas, J., Tricco, A. C., Welch, V. A., Whiting, P., & Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
• Saleh, M. M., Abdelkader, M., & Sadek Hosny, S. (2023). Architectural education challenges and opportunities in a post-pandemic digital age. Ain Shams Engineering Journal, 14(8), 102027. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2022.102027
• Spitzer, B. O., Ma, J. H., Erdogmus, E., Kreimer, B., Ryherd, E., & Diefes-Dux, H. (2022). Framework for the use of extended reality modalities in AEC education. Buildings, 12(12), 2169. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12122169
• Wang, J., Ma, Q., & Wei, X. (2023). The application of extended reality technology in architectural design educa-tion: A review. Buildings, 13(12), 2931. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13122931
• Weiner, F. (2005). Five critical horizons for architectural educators in an age of distraction. In E. Harder (Ed.), EAAE Prize 2003-2005 Writings in Architectural Education (pp. 21–46). EAAE Council. https://www.eaae.be/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/26_writings-in-architectural-education.pdf
• Wu, W., Hartless, J., Tesei, A., Gunji, V., Ayer, S., & London, J. (2019). Design assessment in virtual and mixed real-ity environments: Comparison of novices and experts. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 145(9), 04019049. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001683