Examining Problem Solving Ability And Creativity Of The Students In Design Studio

Year 2010, Volume: 23 Issue: 4, 511 - 518, 26.05.2010

Nazan Kırcı Tayfun Yıldırım

Abstract

The willingness, the pre-college training, earned cultural and knowledge background of a student are important factors that have effect on student profiles. A 3-stage sketch problem examination which is aimed to evaluate their drawing, problem solving abilities and creativities was designed in a vertically organized design studio.  It was observed that problem solving ability of the students considerably favorable than their creativity. With the purpose of developing the creativity of the students, a study method which is based on the formal and structural experimentation was suggested for the future studio studies regarding to current  architectural trends.  

 

Key words: Design Education; Student Profile; Willingness; Problem Solving; Creativity

Keywords

Design Education; Student Profile; Willingness; Problem Solving; Creativity

References

• Casakin, H., “Metaphors in Design Problem Solving: Implications for Creativity”, International Journal of Design, 1 (2):23-35 (2007).
• Christiaans, H.H.C.M., “Creativity as a Design Criterion”, Creativity Research Journal, 14 (1): 41– 54 (2002).
• Welling, H., “Four Mental Operations in Creative Cognition: The Importance of Abstraction”, Creativity Research Journal, 19 (2): 163-177 (2007).
• Unwin, S., “A bridge into architecture”, LTSN Centre for Education in the Built Environment AEE, Architectural Educators: 11th -12th September, Cardiff University, 1-16 (2001).
• Anonymous, “The ills of architectural education: a diagnosis”, Journal of Architectural Education, 17 (4): 93-99 (1963).
• Cross, N., “Design research: a disciplined conversation”, Design Issue, 15 (2): 5-10 (1999).
• Baynes, K., “Defining a design dimension of the curriculum”, International Journal of Art Design Education, 4 (3): 237 (1985).
• Peichl, G.,“Architectural education and the principle of the “masterschool”, Journal of Architectural Education, 40 (2): Jubilee Issue, 55-56 (1987).
• Liddament, T., “Design and problem solving”, Idater 96, Loughbour University, 1-5 (1996).
• McCoy, J. M, Evans, G.W., “The potential role of the physical environment in fostering creativity”, Creativity Research Journal, 14 (3&4): 409–426 (2002).
• Yu-Tung, L., “Creativity or novelty?”, Design Studies, 21: 261–276 (2000).
• Royal Institute of British Architects., “Tomorrow’s architect”, London, (2003).
• Wolffe, M., Defesche, A., Lans, W., “Valued approach to the assessment of design skills in architectural education: a pilot study”, Quality in Higher Education, 5(2): 125-132 (1999).
• Lawson, B., “How designers think: the design process demystified”, Architectural Press, Oxford, (1997).
• Schön, D., “The design studio: an exploration of its traditions and potentials”, RIBA Publications, London,(1985).
• Andrew, R., “Cognitive styles and student
• progression in architectural design education”, Design Studies, 27(2): 167-181 (2006).
• Garvin, W.L., “Creativity and the design process”, Journal of Architectural Education, 19 (1): 3-4 (1964).
• Eder, W.E., Hubka, V., “Curriculum, pedagogics and didactics for design education”, Journal of Engineering, Design, 16 (1): 45-61 (2005).
• Cross, N., “Descriptive models of creative design: application to an example”, Design Studies, 18 (4): 427-440 (1997).
• Dorst, K., Cross, N., “Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem–solution”, Design Studies, 22 (5): 425-437 (2001).
• Meneely, J., Portillo, M., “The Adaptable mind in design: relating personality, cognitive style, and creative performance”, Creativity Research Journal, 17 (2&3):155–166 (2005).
• Venturi, R., “Learning from Las Vegas”, MIT Press, Cambridge,(1972).
• Stern, R., “Modern Clasisism”, Thames and Hudson, London, (1988).
• Papadakis, A., Steele, J., “Architecture der
• gegenward”, edition Pierre TaiJ, Paris, (1997).