An Online Basic Design Studio Experience: From Point to Space

Year 2022, , 227 - 235, 20.12.2022

Mine Tunçok Sarıberberoğlu

https://doi.org/10.46474/jds.1150261

Abstract

This article tries to set an example and explore the potential and limitations of the online learning environment for the first-year Basic Design Studio course based on abstract architectural design thinking. The course is constructed on a connected yet independent series of practices on basic design principles starting from the point to the void space. The course was divided into parts to achieve continuity in design thinking, and instructions and critics were given via distant online theoretic implications. The final course focused on improving students' design skills on a small-scale project. Within each practice, students could experience the abstract way of thinking of design to achieve complex parameters of design problems. Overall evaluation for each study depended on the necessities of the work and participation of the students. The paper sets an example of an online architectural studio format and discusses the advantages and shortcomings of online courses for first-year architectural education.

Keywords

Basic Design, Architectural Design Studio, Online Course

Thanks

I would like to thank all our students for their hard work and our research assistants, Saime Gümüştaş Babalı and Müge Meterelliyöz, for their contribution.

References

• Buldan, E. (2021). Situated Learning in Online Architectural Studio Education. Journal of Design Studio, 3(1), 59-70.
• Çınar, K. & Çınar, S. (2018). Temel Tasarım. KTO Karatay Üniversitesi Yayınları, Konya.
• Danacı, H. M. (2015). Creativity and knowledge in architectural education. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174, 1309-1312.
• Demir, A. (1993). Temel Plastik Sanatlar Eğitimi. Eskişehir: Anadolu Üniversitesi Açık Öğretim Yayınları, Yayın No: 576.
• Ertok Atmaca, A. (2014). Temel Tasarım. Ankara: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık Eğitim Danışmanlık Tic. Ltd. Şti.
• Gürer, L. (1992). Temel Tasarım. İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi Yayınları.
• Hodgkin, R. A. (1985). Playing and Exploring: Education Through the Discovery of Order. Methuen, London, p. 146.
• Işıngör, M. E. E. & Aslıer, M. (1980). Resim-1 Temel Sanat Eğitimi Resim Teknikleri Grafik Resim. Ankara: M.E.B. Yayınları
• Lawson, B. (2005). How Designers Think: The Design Process Demystified. Great Britain: Architectural Press, Elsevier.
• Lueth, P. L. O. (2008). The architectural design studio as a learning environment: a qualitative exploration of architecture design student learning experiences in design studios from first through fourth-year, Unpublished PhD Thesis, Iowa: Iowa State University.
• Kazaz, E. & Demircan, B. (2022). Covid-19 Pandemisi Sürecinde Tarihi Kent Dokusunda Mimari Stüdyo Deneyimi; Atatürk Üniversitesi Mimari Proje Stüdyosu VII. Kent Akademisi, 15(1), 38-50.
• Kılınç, C., Balçık, S., Karaoğlu, G. & Yamaçlı, R. (2021). Mimarlık Stüdyo Eğitiminde COVID-19 Süreci:‘Temassız Deneyimler’. Modular Journal, 4(1), 62-70.
• Maier, M. (1981). Basic Principles of Design, U.S: Van Nostrand Reinhold Inc.
• Onur, D. & Zorlu, T. (2017). Tasarım Stüdyolarında Uygulanan Eğitim Metotları ve Yaratıcılık İlişkisi. The Turkish Online Journal of Design Art and Communication, 7(4), 542-555.
• Schön, D., A. (1985). The Design Studio. An Exploration of Its Traditions and Potentials, London: Rıba Publication Ltd. p.89
• Seylan, A. (2004). Temel Tasarım. Yem Yayın. İstanbul.
• Sözen, M. & Tanyeli, U. (1992). Sanat Kavram ve Terimleri Sözlüğü, İstanbul: Remzi Kitabevi
• Temple, S. (2020). The Threshold of Abstraction in Beginning Design Pedagogy. Journal of Design Studio, 2(2), 101-110.
• Uluoğlu, B. (1990). Mimari Tasarım Eğitimi: Tasarım Bilgisi Bağlamında Stüdyo Eleştirileri. Unpublished PhD Thesis. İstanbul, İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi.
• Yürekli, İ. & Yürekli, H. (2004). Mimari Tasarım Eğitiminde Enformellik, İTÜ Dergisi, Mimarlık Planlama Tasarım Dergisi, Cilt 3, Sayı 1, 53-62.